MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1975725471 · doi:10.1139/p03-021

Observation of crack propagation in saline ice and freshwater ice with fluid inclusion

2003· article· en· W1975725471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masayasu Arakawa, Victor F. Petrenko

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalineFracture mechanicsGeologyComposite materialMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key process of crack propagation in saline ice is the interaction between the crack and fluid inclusions. We observed their interaction in freshwater ice using very high-speed photography (VHSP) and found that the low-density fluids (air and inert liquid, Fluorinert, 1.78 g/cm3) could not impede the crack effectively, interrupting the propagation for less than 10 µs. The high-density liquid mercury, (13.8 g/cm3) impeded the crack more effectively, stalling the development of the crack for more than 20 µs. The crack velocity in saline ice was measured using two different methods: electrical resistance method (ERM) and VHSP. These two methods returned very different mean velocities, 15 m/s for the ERM and 250 m/s for the VHSP. We found that in ice with conductive liquid inclusions, the ERM measured the time it took to break liquid bridges stretched across a crack rather than the crack velocity. Results from the VHSP show that the maximum crack velocity in saline ice was 500 m/s, which is one-half of that found in freshwater ice. From our results using freshwater ice with inclusions, we conclude that liquid inclusions in saline ice may play a role in this retardation. PACS No.: 62.20Mk

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→