MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070367342 · doi:10.1103/physreve.78.056109

Aging in the shear-transformation-zone theory of plastic deformation

2008· article· en· W2070367342 on OpenAlexaff
Jörg Rottler, Philipp Maass

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear matrixPlateau (mathematics)Materials scienceStress relaxationRelaxation (psychology)PlasticityNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsThermodynamicsSupercoolingShear (geology)Amorphous solidShear stressCondensed matter physicsStrain rateInternal frictionStress (linguistics)Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Kinetic energyExponential functionDynamic strain agingCreepPhysicsClassical mechanicsMathematicsComposite materialAmorphous metalCrystallographyChemistryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging phenomena in the plastic response of amorphous solids are studied within the theory of shear transformation zones (STZs), which describes the kinetic rearrangement of localized defects in response to external stress. To account for the slow, nonequilibrium dynamics after a quench below the glass transition temperature, two possible models are considered. In the first model, transition rates between the internal states of STZs decrease with time, while in the second model aging occurs due to the relaxation of an effective temperature that determines the number density of STZs and other out-of-equilibium degrees of freedom. It is shown that for reasonable choices of parameters, both models capture qualitatively typical aging features seen in computer simulations and experiments: (i) compliance curves measured for different waiting times t_{w} after the quench can be superimposed, when the observation times are rescaled with relaxation times proportional, variantt_{w};{mu} , 0<micro< or =1 , and (ii) stress-strain curves show a stationary plateau stress independent of t_{w} and a peak stress that increases logarithmically with both t_{w} and the strain rate. Trends of the aging behavior with the quench temperature are also discussed.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207