On the admissibility of an isotropic, smooth elastic continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies of elasticity of inhomogeneous materials - in both elastostatics and elastodynamics - assume the existence of locally isotropic, smooth stiffness tensor fields. We investigate the correctness of such a model in the simplest setup of anti-plane classical elasticity. We work with the concept of mesoscale (or apparent) moduli for a finite-size window placed in such a material, in accordance with the Hill condition for the Hooke law. The limit from mesoscale down to infinitesimal windows is admissible within the model of an assumed smooth, locally isotropic continuum. However, this limit is not admissible from the standpoint of a microstructure, and, in order to set up an inhomogeneous elastic medium, one must introduce its anisotropy. A separate argument against the local isotropy stems from the representation of a correlation function of a wide-sense stationary and isotropic random field, whose realizations are smooth stiffness tensor fields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".