MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1452836746 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609725.017

Diffusively rough interfaces

2009· book-chapter· en· W1452836746 on OpenAlexaff
Rashmi C. Desai, Raymond Kapral

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)Statistical physicsInterface (matter)DiffusionNoise (video)Order (exchange)Kinetic energyPhysicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisMechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence and dynamics of interfaces played a central role in the description of the domain-coarsening phenomena considered in the previous chapters. In the late stages of domain growth the random forces in the order parameter kinetic equations were suppressed and the interface dynamics was treated deterministically. In this chapter we provide a more detailed treatment of the effects of noise and diffusion on the structure of the interface. One may capture the essential physics of diffusively rough interfaces in a general model often called the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang (KPZ) equation (Kardar et al ., 1986). KPZ equation Consider a front in a ( d + 1)-dimensional system extended along x and moving, on average, in the x 1 direction (see Fig. 16.1). The system is assumed to be infinitely extended along x1 and has linear dimension L along x . In contrast to the description in Chapter 7, we neglect the intrinsic thickness of the interface and investigate the effects of diffusion and noise on the dynamics of the interfacial profile. Referring to Fig. 16.1, let h( x , t ) be the position of the interface as a function of x at time t , relative to an arbitrarily selected origin. Its mean position at time t is. We assume that the front propagates with velocity v in a direction normal to its interface; noise provides a destabilizing influence on the front while diffusion tends to remove any surface roughness. A sketch of a portion of the interface profile h ( x , t ) as a function of x at time t is shown in Fig. 16.2.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207