Ultrasonic wave propagation across a thin nonlinear anisotropic layer between two half-spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boundary conditions and perturbation theory are combined to create a set of equations which, when solved, yield the reflected and transmitted wave forms in the case of a thin layer of material that is perfectly bonded between two isotropic half-spaces. The set of perturbed boundary conditions is created by first using the fully bonded boundary conditions at each of the two interfaces between the thin layer and the half-spaces. Then, by restricting the layer's thickness to be much smaller than an acoustic wavelength, perturbation theory can be used on these two sets of boundary equations, producing a set of equations which effectively treat the thin layer as a single interface via a perturbation term. With this set of equations, the full range of incident and polar angles can be considered, with results general enough to use with a layer that is anisotropic, nonlinear, or both anisotropic and nonlinear. Finally the validity of these equations is discussed, comparing the computer simulation results of this theory to results from standard methods, and looking at cases where the results (or various properties of the results) are known or can be predicted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".