↓ Skip to main content

Uncertainty analysis of a model of wind-blown volcanic plumes

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Volcanology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Uncertainty analysis of a model of wind-blown volcanic plumes
Published in
Bulletin of Volcanology, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00445-015-0959-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J. Woodhouse, Andrew J. Hogg, Jeremy C. Phillips, Jonathan C. Rougier

Abstract

Mathematical models of natural processes can be used as inversion tools to predict unobserved properties from measured quantities. Uncertainty in observations and model formulation impact on the efficacy of inverse modelling. We present a general methodology, history matching, that can be used to investigate the effect of observational and model uncertainty on inverse modelling studies. We demonstrate history matching on an integral model of volcanic plumes that is used to estimate source conditions from observations of the rise height of plumes during the eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland, in 2010 and Grímsvötn, Iceland, in 2011. Sources of uncertainty are identified and quantified, and propagated through the integral plume model. A preliminary sensitivity analysis is performed to identify the uncertain model parameters that strongly influence model predictions. Model predictions are assessed against observations through an implausibility measure that rules out model inputs that are considered implausible given the quantified uncertainty. We demonstrate that the source mass flux at the volcano can be estimated from plume height observations, but the magmatic temperature, exit velocity and exsolved gas mass fraction cannot be accurately determined. Uncertainty in plume height observations and entrainment coefficients results in a large range of plausible values of the source mass flux. Our analysis shows that better constraints on entrainment coefficients for volcanic plumes and more precise observations of plume height are required to obtain tightly constrained estimates of the source mass flux.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
France 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Iceland 1 3%
Estonia 1 3%
Unknown 33 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 22 56%
Engineering 4 10%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,236,953
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Volcanology
#771
of 1,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,453
of 267,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Volcanology
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 267,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.