MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

New insights into the relationship between mass eruption rate and volcanic column height based on the IVESPA dataset

2022· preprint· en· W4312204187 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Aubry, Samantha Engwell, Costanza Bonadonna, Larry G. Mastin, Guillaume Carazzo, Alexa R. Van Eaton, David Jessop, R. G. Grainger, Simona Scollo, Isabelle A. Taylor, M. Jellinek, Anja Schmidt, Sébastien Biass, Mathieu Gouhier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Geological SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean CommissionSight Research UK
KeywordsVolcanoExplosive eruptionColumn (typography)Atmospheric sciencesStratification (seeds)GeologyAtmosphere (unit)Explosive materialWind speedEnvironmental scienceVulcanian eruptionMeteorologyRange (aeronautics)Earth scienceSeismologyGeographyMathematicsMagmaGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relating the mass eruption rate (MER) of explosive eruptions to column height in the atmosphere is key to reconstructing past eruptions and forecasting volcanic hazards. Using 134 eruptive events from the Independent Volcanic Eruption Source Parameter Archive (IVESPA v1.0), we explore the canonical MER-height relationship for four measures of column height: spreading level, sulfur dioxide height, and top height from both directly observed plumes and those reconstructed from deposits. These relationships show significant differences and should be chosen carefully for operational and research applications. The roles of atmospheric stratification, wind, and humidity remain challenging to assess across the large range of eruptive conditions in this database, ultimately resulting in empirical relationships outperforming analytical models that account for atmospheric conditions. This finding reveals the complexity of the height-MER relation that is difficult to constrain based on available heterogeneous observations, which reinforces the need for improved datasets to develop eruptive column models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→