MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W841964913 · doi:10.13182/nt08-a3980

Probabilistic Methodology for Long-Term Assessment of Volcanic Hazards

2008· article· en· W841964913 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNuclear Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver AbfälleNuclear Waste Management Organization
KeywordsProbabilistic logicVolcanismTerm (time)HazardVolcanoEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceVolcanic hazardsKernel (algebra)Earth scienceGeologyMathematicsSeismologyArtificial intelligenceTectonicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the difficulty of describing the complex spatial and temporal patterns inherent to volcanism, the use of solely deterministic models is not sufficient for long-term estimation of volcanic hazards. In order to account for the intrinsic uncertainty of volcanism that occurs in space and time and with respect to event types and their intensity, the use of probabilistic models becomes quite natural for long-term hazard assessment. Here, we discuss a range of probabilistic approaches to forecast the future spatial distribution of volcanism, including kernel, adaptive kernel, and Cox process methods. An application to the volcanic arc of Tohoku illustrates the proposed methodology.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.255 · 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