Analogue benchmarks of shortening and extension experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report a direct comparison of scaled analogue experiments to test the reproducibility of model results among ten different experimental modelling laboratories. We present results for two experiments: a brittle thrust wedge experiment and a brittleviscous extension experiment. The experimental set-up, the model construction technique, the viscous material and the base and wall properties were prescribed. However, each laboratory used its own frictional analogue material and experimental apparatus. Comparison of results for the shortening experiment highlights large differences in model evolution that may have resulted from (1) differences in boundary conditions (indenter or basal-pull models), (2) differences in model widths, (3) location of observation (for example, sidewall versus centre of model), (4) material properties, (5) base and sidewall frictional properties, and (6) differences in set-up technique of individual experimenters. Six laboratories carried out the shortening experiment with a mobile wall. The overall evolution of their models is broadly similar, with the development of a thrust wedge characterized by forward thrust propagation and by back thrusting. However, significant variations are observed in spacing between thrusts, their dip angles, number of forward thrusts and back thrusts, and surface slopes. The structural evolution of the brittle-viscious extension experiments is similar to a high degree. Faulting initiates in the brittle layers above the viscous layer in close vicinity to the basal velocity discontinuity. Measurements of fault dip angles and fault spacing vary among laboratories. Comparison of experimental results indicates an encouraging overall agreement in model evolution, but also highlights important variations in the geometry and evolution of the resulting structures that may be induced by differences in modelling materials, model dimensions, experimental set-ups and observation location.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".