| Title |
An objective method for the production of isopach maps and implications for the estimation of tephra deposit volumes and their uncertainties
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Volcanology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00445-015-0942-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. L. Engwell, W. P. Aspinall, R. S. J. Sparks |
| Abstract |
Characterization of explosive volcanic eruptive processes from interpretation of deposits is a key for assessing volcanic hazard and risk, particularly for infrequent large explosive eruptions and those whose deposits are transient in the geological record. While eruption size-determined by measurement and interpretation of tephra fall deposits-is of particular importance, uncertainties for such measurements and volume estimates are rarely presented. Here, tephra volume estimates are derived from isopach maps produced by modeling raw thickness data as cubic B-spline curves under tension. Isopachs are objectively determined in relation to original data and enable limitations in volume estimates from published maps to be investigated. The eruption volumes derived using spline isopachs differ from selected published estimates by 15-40 %, reflecting uncertainties in the volume estimation process. The formalized analysis enables identification of sources of uncertainty; eruptive volume uncertainties (>30 %) are much greater than thickness measurement uncertainties (~10 %). The number of measurements is a key factor in volume estimate uncertainty, regardless of method utilized for isopach production. Deposits processed using the cubic B-spline method are well described by 60 measurements distributed across each deposit; however, this figure is deposit and distribution dependent, increasing for geometrically complex deposits, such as those exhibiting bilobate dispersion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 19% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 50 | 74% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,763,547
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Volcanology
#890
of 1,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,264
of 264,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Volcanology
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.