MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055981884 · doi:10.1190/1.1487068

Experimental determination of the elastic coefficients of an orthorhombic material

2001· article· en· W2055981884 on OpenAlexafffund
Marko Mah, Douglas R. Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund
KeywordsAnisotropyOrthorhombic crystal systemPhase velocityMaterials scienceElastic modulusDispersion (optics)Polarization (electrochemistry)OpticsDiffractionMechanicsPhysicsAcousticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In terms of elastic anisotropy, many rocks may be considered to have orthorhombic symmetry. Experimentally determining the nine independent elastic coefficients required for this case remains challenging. Elastic coefficients are most often found from measurements of the phase velocity in a variety of directions throughout a material, but finding this plane-wave velocity is problematic. Here, quasi-P and quasi-S phase speeds are found using the τ–p transformation through a composite material of orthorhombic symmetry. Arrays of specially constructed transducers (0.65 MHz) with different modes of vibration were placed on a rectangular prism of the material. More than 620 individual measures of phase speed were obtained at different directions and subsequently used in a generalized least-squares inversion that yields the required elastic coefficients. The analysis does not account for the effects of wave-speed dispersion evident in the waveforms acquired in the composite material. This dispersion is particularly severe for the in-plane, quasi-S polarization and is possibly a consequence of the fine layered structure of the material.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207