MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413366981 · doi:10.1007/s00445-025-01836-x

Future eruptions of the Kolumbo volcanic field: prognosis with hazard and risk assessment

2025· article· en· W4413366981 on OpenAlex
R. S. J. Sparks, Georgios C. Vougioukalakis, Augusto Neri, A. Αντωνάκος, Peter J. Baxter, Andrea Bevilacqua, Matteo Cerminara, Mattia de’ Michieli Vitturi, L. Francalanci, Anna Koutroulli, Fukashi Maeno, Filippo Mastroianni, Kostas Papazachos, Federica Pardini, Raphael Paris R, Alessandro Tadini, Orlando Vaselli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Volcanology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Tectonic Studies in Latin America
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Network of Agencies for Health Technology AssessmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
KeywordsVolcanic hazardsGeologyVolcanoHazardHazard analysisSedimentologyRisk assessmentSeismologyField (mathematics)Earth scienceGeochemistryEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Kolumbo submarine volcanic field consists of at least 24 monogenetic cones and a polygenetic central volcano which erupted in 1650 CE. The prognosis, hazards and risks from future eruptions are assessed by structured expert judgement informed by knowledge of the volcanic history, structure and eruptive products, hazards modelling and global knowledge of submarine volcanism. There are significant knowledge gaps leading to large uncertainties in this assessment, characterised quantitatively by 90% uncertainty intervals (UI) in elicitation responses. The median assessed probability of eruption in the next 30 years is low at 0.75% (90% UI 0.4% to 14%) but the upper, 95th percentile value indicates the probability could be as high as 1 in 7 chance. The magnitude of an eruption in the next 30 years is mostly likely to be smaller than that of 1650 CE, but there is a significant chance it could be as large as 1650 CE. A future eruption could generate several high impact hazards including tsunamis, lethal gas clouds, pyroclastic density currents, widespread tephra fall and associated earthquakes. Nearby islands are threatened and in particular Santorini. In the tourist high season, the exposed population on Santorini may exceed 80,000 people. Vulnerability is high especially along the eastern coast which may be affected by tsunami and gas cloud hazards. Transport, telecommunications, power supplies and water resources are likely to be severely disrupted and even cease to function. For tsunami hazards individual risk of death in threatened areas is high and societal risk is very high if there is an ongoing eruption and exceeds what might be judged acceptable by factors of over 100.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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