Boundary conditions for phase transitions and interfacial reactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Si et al. [Citation1] pointed out that it was inappropriate to use continuity of displacement at interfaces during phase transitions or in the case of reactions at interfaces as in the case of oxidation, since appropriate reference configurations cannot be identified. They instead derived a new compatibility constraint, when atleast one of the adjoining phases is crystalline. The test of these ideas offered by Slattery et al. [Citation2] was successful, but it likely was too simple, since the deformations were so small. A more stringent and successful test has recently been offered by [Citation3]. Here, we analyze oxidation on the surface of a cylinder both using an extension of the compatibility constraint and using continuity of displacement, comparing the results with the experimental observations of Imbrie and Lagoudas [Citation4]. Keywords: compatibility constraintcontinuity of displacementoxidation Acknowledgments This research was support by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant #FA9550-06-1-0242. The authors are grateful for the many conversations that they have had with D. C. Lagoudas and J. R. Walton and T. Sendova. Notes Notes 1. It is important to note that we have included work done by surface stresses at the fracture edge that was inadvertently left out by Slattery et al. [Citation10, p. 288].
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it