MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972313145 · doi:10.1029/2008gl034723

Imaging compaction band propagation in Diemelstadt sandstone using acoustic emission locations

2008· article· en· W1972313145 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward Townend, B. D. Thompson, Philip Benson, P. G. Meredith, Patrick Baud, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompactionGeologyAcoustic emissionBeddingDeformation bandsAmplitudeSeismologyDeformation (meteorology)Overburden pressureMineralogyCrackingGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceOpticsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report results from a conventional triaxial test performed on a specimen of Diemelstadt sandstone under an effective confining pressure of 110 MPa; a value sufficient to induce compaction bands. The maximum principal stress was applied normal to the visible bedding so that compaction bands propagated parallel to bedding. The spatio‐temporal distribution of acoustic emission events greater than 40 dB in amplitude, and associated with the propagation of the first compaction band, were located in 3D, to within ±2 mm, using a Hyperion Giga‐RAM recorder. Event magnitudes were used to calculate the seismic b‐value at intervals during band growth. Results show that compaction bands nucleate at the specimen edge and propagate across the sample at approximately 0.08 mm s−1. The seismic b‐value does not vary significantly during deformation, suggesting that compaction band growth is characterized by small scale cracking that does not change significantly in scale.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations92
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207