MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proceedings of the Workshop on Mechanical Behavior of Glassy Materials (Vancouver, 21–23 July 2007)

2008· article· en· W2044175450 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jörg Rottler, Malcolm P. Kennett, P. C. E. Stamp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceEvent (particle physics)Engineering physicsEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue highlights some of the research topics presented at the workshop on Mechanical Behavior of Glassy Materials, which took place in Vancouver, Canada from 21–23 July 2007. The workshop was organized under the auspices of the Pacific Institute of Theoretical Physics (PITP) with support from the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences (PIMS) and Simon Fraser University (SFU). During this three-day event, 23 invited lectures were presented to an international group of about 40 participants. The full conference program as well as an archive of all presentations can be found online at www.pitp.physics.ubc.ca/confs/glass07/ The aim of the workshop was to bring together theorists and experimentalists working on glassy systems, with mechanical properties as the unifying theme. The talks touched on many aspects of the glass problem, from theories of the glass transition and mode coupling approaches to glassy dynamics, to spin glasses, simulations and theories of amorphous plasticity, the universal origin of ageing and dynamical heterogeneity in glasses, and glassy phenomena in biological systems. The interplay of ideas from high- and low-temperature (quantum) regimes of glasses led to lively discussions that brought researchers in both communities to explore similarities and differences in their respective ideas and physical systems. Progress was made on several fronts, and we hope that everyone involved left with some new perspective on their particular corner of interest in a class of problems that continues to present many challenges.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.019

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Condensed MatterSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207