MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220808863 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-13588

The global reach of the 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption

2022· preprint· en· W4220808863 on OpenAlexaff
Jadranka Šepić, Igor Medvedev, I. Fine, Richard E. Thomson, Alexander B. Rabinovich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyVolcanoClimatologyOceanographySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tonga volcanic eruption of 15 January 2022 generated tsunami waves that impacted the entire Global Ocean as far away as 18,000 km from the source in the tropical Pacific Ocean. A defining characteristic of the tsunami was the dual forcing mechanism that sent oceanic waves radiating outward from the source at the longwave speed and atmospheric pressure Lamb waves radiating around the globe at the speed of sound (i.e. roughly 1.5 times faster than the longwave phase speed). Based on time series from several hundred high-resolution observational sites, we constructed global maps of the oceanic tsunami waves and the atmospheric Lamb waves. In some areas of the Pacific Ocean, we were able to distinguish between the two types of motions and estimate their relative contribution. A global numerical model of tsunami waves was constructed and results from the model compared with the observations. The modeled and observed tsunami wave heights were in good agreement. The global maps also enabled us to identify regional “hot spots” where the tsunami heights were highest. In addition to areas in the Pacific Ocean (Chile, New Zealand, Japan, the U.S. West Coast, and the Alaska/Aleutian Islands), “hot regions” included the Western Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Europe and northern Africa.

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)0.000
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→