Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of the acoustic and seismic emissions from impacted singing grains and from avalanching dune sand grains is sought in modes of vibration in discreet grain columns. It is postulated that when the grains in a column are pressed together and forced to slide over one another, elastic shear bands are formed at the contact areas with distinct elastic moduli. Such contact shear bands would have implications in the formulation of the Hertz–Mindlin contact theory. The assembly of all grain columns below the impacting pestle forms the slip (slide) shear band. The transfer of energy from the pestle to the modes of vibration in such columns is effected by the stick–slip effect. The intense collective vibration of all columns in the slip shear band results in the familiar musical sound. The concept of grain flowability is used to justify the disparity between the acoustic emissions from impacted singing grains and from avalanching booming dune sand grains. The concept of grain columns is assumed to apply in the freely avalanching sand band, but with longer length to justify the lower frequencies. This approach predicts frequency spectra comprising a low-frequency content and a dominant frequency with its harmonics in agreement with the experimental evidence. Additionally, it can account for the low-frequency vibration evoked when booming sand flows through a funnel, with implications in the understanding of grain silo vibrations. It is argued that sand grains do not sing or boom because the stick–slip effect in not applicable in the contact shear bands.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".