Shear surface waves at the interface of two magneto‐electro‐elastic media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the problem of the existence and propagation of a surface SH wave at the interface of two magneto‐electro‐elastic half‐spaces. Design/methodology/approach Equations of motions for magneto‐electro‐elastic materials have been used with coupling between mechanical, electric and magnetic fields. The problem is solved for four different sets of boundary conditions. Findings The results show that, for appropriate choice of material parameters, a non dispersive surface wave can propagate at the interface of these media. The existence condition is easier to satisfy for an electrically closed contact or no electromagnetic contact between two half‐spaces. The existence conditions can be easily satisfied for all four sets of boundary conditions if the two half‐spaces have their main symmetry axis, both parallel to the interface and perpendicular to the propagation direction, directed in the opposite directions. In this case the SH surface wave can always propagate if the two media are identical. Originality/value The magneto‐electric coupling effect has extensive applications, for example in electronic packaging, acoustic devices and medical ultrasonic imaging. The results of this paper give better understanding of the effects of the boundary conditions on the propagation of SH surface waves in magneto‐electro‐elastic materials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".