MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411375216 · doi:10.1002/jqs.3730

Cryptotephra from a ~120 ka Tondano eruption in a sediment core from Lake Towuti (Indonesia)

2025· article· en· W4411375216 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jinheum Park, Christine Lane, Clive Oppenheimer, Christina Manning, Francesca Forni, Hendrik Vogel, Satria Bijaksana, James M. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quaternary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam - Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCambridge TrustBrown UniversityGenome British ColumbiaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNatural Environment Research CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungUniversity of MinnesotaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologySediment coreSedimentPaleontologyPhysical geographyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Southeast Asia is one of the most volcanically active regions in the world, yet their long‐term eruptive history has been comparatively little studied. In particular, little work has explored the potential of sedimentary archives to record distal cryptotephra, which may help in identifying some of the region's larger Quaternary eruptions. Here, we report the finding of cryptotephra in a sediment core from Lake Towuti (Sulawesi, Indonesia). Based on glass geochemistry and core stratigraphy, we attribute the deposit to a ~120 ka eruption of Tondano, a large caldera situated on the Minahasa peninsula of Sulawesi. The minimal (~38 shards per gram) amount of tephra deposition hints at the limited ecological impact and/or magnitude of the eruption as well as establishing a new isochron that may enable synchronisation of late‐Pleistocene sedimentary archives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quaternary ScienceSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207