MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079912747 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0612

Snow sounds when rubbing or impacting a snow bed

2015· article· en· W2079912747 on OpenAlexaffvenue
A. J. Patitsas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowRubbingRigidity (electromagnetism)RodVibrationPelletsAcoustic emissionMeteorologyPhysicsAcousticsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acoustic emissions from rubbing the ends of baseball bats, thin wood rods, and the soles of rubber boots on a snow bed were recorded and analyzed. The same analysis was also extended to the acoustic emissions from impacting a snow bed by small pestles and by subjecting a snow bed to relatively large stresses by stepping on it with shoes of variable rigidity. It is shown that when a snow bed is lightly rubbed, the acoustic emissions originate from vibration mode excitation in the rubbing body. It is argued that when highly granular cold snow is impacted by a small pestle, the acoustic emissions could originate with mode excitation in granule vibration bands around the pestle end, as in the case of impacted singing sands. Layers of highly granular and rounded snow pellets, seemingly formed from frozen raindrops, could contribute especially to snow avalanches. When walking on a snow bed, the acoustic emissions include squeaky sounds that originate from mode excitation in the shoe sole and crunchy and squeally sounds that could originate with crack growth and crystal dislocation processes in the sheared matrix of snow grains and grain bonds.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→