MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171291776 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2237

Interpretation of volcanic surface deformation using a 3D multi-source approach

2021· article· en· W3171291776 on OpenAlexaff
José Fernández, Antonio G. Camacho, Sergey Samsonov, K. F. Tiampo, Mimmo Palano

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyVolcanoGeodetic datumInterferometric synthetic aperture radarSlip (aerodynamics)GNSS applicationsGeodesyInversion (geology)Deformation (meteorology)SeismologyGlobal Positioning SystemComputer scienceRemote sensingTectonicsSynthetic aperture radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volcano geodetic observation is a valuable tool to infer location, strength and geometry of magmatic plumbing systems. The availability of high precision and spatial resolution, spanning decades, deformation data from satellite radar observation and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) can give us important information for detecting and characterizing their temporal variations as well as other possible geodynamic sources acting in the volcanic area. For this objective inversion techniques are necessary which help us to obtain the maximum of information from these new datasets. We present a new, original methodology to carry out a multi-source inversion of ground deformation data to better understand the subsurface causative processes (Camacho et al., 2020). The methodology uses a nonlinear approach which permits the determination of location, size and three-dimensional configuration, without any a priori assumption as to the number, nature or shape of the potential sources. The proposed method identifies a combination of pressure bodies and different types of dislocation sources (dip-slip, strike-slip and tensile) representing magmatic sources and other processes such as earthquakes, landslides or groundwater-induced subsidence through the aggregation of elemental cells. This approach carries out a simultaneous inversion of the deformation components and/or line-of-sight (LOS) data; and a simultaneous determination of diverse structures such as pressure bodies or dislocation sources, representing local and regional effects. Both things are done in a fully 3D context and without any initial hypothesis about the number, geometry or types of the causative sources is necessary. We show results from the application of this new methodology to synthetic and real test cases (e.g., Mt. Etna). This research has been primarily supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación and Universidades research project DEEP-MAPS (RTI2018-093874-B-I00) and is part of the CSIC-PTIs TELEDETEC and POLARCSIC activities. References Camacho, A.G., Fernández, J., Samsonov, S.V., Tiampo K.F., Palano, M., 2020. Multisource 3D modelling of elastic volcanic ground deformations. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 547C, 116445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116445.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geophysical Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207