MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039730779 · doi:10.1029/2006gl028721

Imaging slow failure in triaxially deformed Etna basalt using 3D acoustic‐emission location and X‐ray computed tomography

2007· article· en· W2039730779 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip Benson, B. D. Thompson, P. G. Meredith, Sergio Vinciguerra, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcoustic emissionBasaltGeologyDeformation (meteorology)VolcanoShear (geology)Fault (geology)Volume (thermodynamics)Strain rateSeismologyCompression (physics)MineralogyMaterials sciencePetrologyComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have deformed basalt from Mount Etna (Italy) in triaxial compression tests under an effective confining pressure representative of conditions under a volcanic edifice (40 MPa), and at a constant strain rate of 5 × 10 −6 s −1 . Despite containing a high level of pre‐existing microcrack damage, Etna basalt retains a high strength of 475 MPa. We have monitored the complete deformation cycle through contemporaneous measurements of axial strain, pore volume change, compressional wave velocity change and acoustic emission (AE) output. We have been able to follow the complete evolution of the throughgoing shear fault without recourse to any artificial means of slowing the deformation. Locations of AE events over time yields an estimate of the fault propagation velocity of between 2 and 4 mm.s −1 . We also find excellent agreement between AE locations and post‐test images from X‐ray microtomography scanning that delineates deformation zone architecture.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations119
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207