MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401190434 · doi:10.1098/rsos.231555

Bubble ascent and rupture in mud volcanoes

2024· article· en· W4401190434 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. L. Rudolph, Kirti Chandra Sahu, Nikos Savva, András Szilágyi, Zoltán Hórvölgyi, Péter Márton, Ádám Tajti, Károly Szép, Boglárka Balog, Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Harishankar Manikantan, Ferenc L. Forray, Michael Manga, Péter Hantz

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchDivision of Earth SciencesNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyLavaBubbleBurstingVolcanoNucleationMechanicsPetrologyPhysicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large gas bubbles can reach the surface of pools of mud and lava where they burst, often through the formation and expansion of circular holes. Bursting bubbles release volatiles and generate spatter, and hence play a key role in volcanic degassing and volcanic edifice construction. Here, we study the ascent and rupture of bubbles using a combination of field observations at Pâclele Mici (Romania), laboratory experiments with mud from the Imperial Valley (California, USA), numerical simulations and theoretical models. Numerical simulations predict that bubbles ascend through the mud as elliptical caps that develop a dimple at the apex as they impinge on the free surface. We documented the rupture of bubbles in nature and under laboratory conditions using high-speed video. The bursting of mud bubbles starts with the nucleation of multiple holes, which form at a near-constant rate and in quick succession. The quasi-circular holes rapidly grow and coalesce, and the sheet evolves towards a filamentous structure that finally falls back into the mud pool, sometimes breaking up into droplets. The rate of expansion of holes in the sheet can be explained by a generalization of the Taylor-Culick theory, which is shown to hold independent of the fluid rheology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207