MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977449139 · doi:10.1029/2007gl031076

Fluid‐induced rupture experiment on Fontainebleau sandstone: Premonitory activity, rupture propagation, and aftershocks

2007· article· en· W1977449139 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Schubnel, B. D. Thompson, J. Fortin, Yves Guéguen, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAftershockFault planeDifferential stressAcoustic emissionPore water pressureNucleationOverburden pressurePermeability (electromagnetism)PorosityGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyComposite materialSeismologyFault (geology)Materials scienceDeformation (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 14% porosity Fontainebleau sandstone sample (diameter = 40 mm, length = 88 mm) was loaded tri‐axially, under 100 MPa confining pressure and 240 MPa differential stress. In drained conditions and under constant load, pore pressure (water) was raised until failure was triggered. During the experiment, elastic wave velocities and permeability were monitored while more than 3000 Acoustic Emissions (AE) were located prior and after failure. AE locations show that macroscopic fracture propagated from a large nucleation patch at speeds comprised between 0.1 and 4 m/s. Number of AE hits per second followed Omori's law, with exponents of 0.92 and 1.18 pre‐ and post‐failure respectively. No quiescence was observed post failure, except where rupture initially nucleated from. Fast depressurization of the pore space induced secondary aftershocks located within the fracture plane, possibly indicating a heterogeneous fault geometry after rupture, of lower permeability, that compacted during the release of pore pressure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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