MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063301362 · doi:10.1103/physreve.74.036115

Experimental investigation of the scaling of columnar joints

2006· article· en· W2063301362 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Goehring, Stephen W. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingMaterials scienceGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Columnar jointing is a fracture pattern common in igneous rocks in which cracks self-organize into a roughly hexagonal arrangement, leaving behind an ordered colonnade. We report observations of columnar jointing in a laboratory analog system, desiccated corn starch slurries. Using measurements of moisture density, evaporation rates, and fracture advance rates as evidence, we suggest that an advective-diffusive system is responsible for the rough scaling behavior of columnar joints. This theory explains the order of magnitude difference in scales between jointing in lavas and in starches. We investigated the scaling of average columnar cross-sectional areas due to the evaporation rate, the analog of the cooling rate of igneous columnar joints. We measured column areas in experiments where the evaporation rate depended on lamp height and time, in experiments where the evaporation rate was fixed using feedback methods, and in experiments where gelatin was added to vary the rheology of the starch. Our results suggest that the column area at a particular depth is related to both the current conditions, and hysteretically to the geometry of the pattern at previous depths. We argue that there exists a range of stable column scales allowed for any particular evaporation rate.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations93
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicStructural Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207