MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982397860 · doi:10.1142/s0218202510004180

COULOMB FRICTION AND OTHER SLIDING LAWS IN A HIGHER-ORDER GLACIER FLOW MODEL

2009· article· en· W1982397860 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContact Mechanics and Variational Inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoulombCoulomb's lawUniquenessSlip (aerodynamics)Power lawMathematicsBoundary value problemLawMathematical analysisPhysicsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a widely used higher-order glacier flow model with a variety of parametrizations of wall slip, including Coulomb friction, regularized Coulomb friction laws and a power law. Mathematically, the Coulomb friction problem is found to be analogous to a classical friction problem in elasticity theory. We specifically analyze the case in which slip is possible everywhere at the boundary, in which case the weak formulation becomes a semi-coercive convex minimization problem which has a solution only if a solvability condition representing force and torque balance is satisfied. Going beyond previous work, we study the uniqueness of solutions in depth, finding that non-unique solutions are possible under very specialized circumstances. Further, in an extension of work by Campos, Oden and Kikuchi, we show that solutions to the regularized Coulomb friction and power law problems converge to the Coulomb friction problem in appropriate parametric limits, provided the latter is unique, and briefly discuss the implications of possible non-unique solutions for a priori error estimation in numerical approximations.

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.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.230 · 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