MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Large isotopic shift in volcanic plume CO2 prior to a basaltic paroxysmal explosion

2023· preprint· en· W4389518253 on OpenAlexafffund
Fiona D’Arcy, Alessandro Aiuppa, Fausto Grassa, Andrea Luca Rizzo, John Stix

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaEuropean Commission
KeywordsVolcanoPlumeGeologyMagmaIsotopes of carbonCarbon dioxideδ13CGeochemistryBasaltIsotopic ratioIsotopeEarth scienceStable isotope ratioTotal organic carbonChemistryEnvironmental chemistryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide is a key gas to monitor at volcanoes because its fluctuation relative to other gases can be detected prior to eruptions, yet carbon isotopic fluctuations at volcanic summits are not well constrained. Here, we present carbon isotopes measured from plume samples collected at Stromboli volcano, Italy, by Unoccupied Aerial System (UAS). We found contrasting volcanic source δ13C in 2018 during quiescence (-0.36 ± 0.59 ‰) versus 10 days before the July 3rd 2019 paroxysm (-5.01 ± 0.56 ‰). During the buildup to the eruption, an influx of CO2-rich magma began degassing at deep levels (~100 MPa) in an open system fashion, causing strong isotopic fractionation and maintaining high CO2/St ratios in the gas. This influx occurred between 10 days prior to the event and up to several months beforehand, meaning that isotopic changes in the gas could be detected weeks to months before unrest.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→