MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976654019 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1406391111

Scaling description of the yielding transition in soft amorphous solids at zero temperature

2014· article· en· W1976654019 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jie Lin, Edan Lerner, Alberto Rosso, Matthieu Wyart

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchYork UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsScalingPlasticityAmorphous solidCondensed matter physicsPhysicsSingularityYield (engineering)Materials scienceStatistical physicsMathematicsThermodynamicsGeometryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield stress materials flow if a sufficiently large shear stress is applied. Although such materials are ubiquitous and relevant for industry, there is no accepted microscopic description of how they yield, even in the simplest situations in which temperature is negligible and in which flow inhomogeneities such as shear bands or fractures are absent. Here we propose a scaling description of the yielding transition in amorphous solids made of soft particles at zero temperature. Our description makes a connection between the Herschel-Bulkley exponent characterizing the singularity of the flow curve near the yield stress Σc, the extension and duration of the avalanches of plasticity observed at threshold, and the density P(x) of soft spots, or shear transformation zones, as a function of the stress increment x beyond which they yield. We argue that the critical exponents of the yielding transition may be expressed in terms of three independent exponents, θ, df, and z, characterizing, respectively, the density of soft spots, the fractal dimension of the avalanches, and their duration. Our description shares some similarity with the depinning transition that occurs when an elastic manifold is driven through a random potential, but also presents some striking differences. We test our arguments in an elasto-plastic model, an automaton model similar to those used in depinning, but with a different interaction kernel, and find satisfying agreement with our predictions in both two and three dimensions.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations292
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207