MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155811745 · doi:10.1130/g48697.1

Eruption risks from covert silicic magma bodies

2021· article· en· W3155811745 on OpenAlexaff
Shane M. Rooyakkers, John Stix, Kim Berlo, Maurizio Petrelli, Freysteinn Sigmundsson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicicGeologyMagmaMagma chamberRhyoliteVolcanoExplosive eruptionBasaltGeochemistrySeismologyEarth scienceVolcanic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unintentional encounters with silicic magma at ~2–2.5 km depth have recently occurred during drilling at three volcanoes: Kilauea (Hawaii), Menengai (Kenya), and Krafla (Iceland). Geophysical surveys had failed to warn about shallow magma before each encounter, and subsequent surveys at Krafla have been unable to resolve the size or architecture of its silicic magma body. This presents a conundrum for volcano monitoring: Do such shallow “covert” magma bodies pose an eruption risk? Here, we show that Krafla’s most recent explosive eruption, a mixed hydrothermal-magmatic event in 1724 C.E. that formed the Víti maar, involved rhyolite essentially indistinguishable in composition from magma encountered during drilling in 2009. Streaks of quenched basalt in some Víti pumices provide direct evidence for interaction between co-erupted rhyolitic and basaltic magmas, but crystals in these pumices show no evidence for late-stage heating or re-equilibration with more mafic melt, implying mixing time scales of at most several hours. Covert silicic magma thus presents an eruption risk at Krafla and may be mobilized with little warning. Difficulties in resolving magma bodies smaller than ~1 km3 with geophysical surveys mean that covert silicic magma may exist at many other volcanoes and should be considered in hazard and risk assessments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207