Contact mechanics of real vs. randomly rough surfaces: A Green's function molecular dynamics study
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
It is commonly assumed that knowing the height auto-correlation function of two solids in contact along with their materials properties is sufficient to predict the contact pressure distribution P(p). We investigate this assumption with contact mechanics calculations that are based on quickly converging Green's function molecular dynamics. In our simulations, elastically deformable solids are pressed against a rigid substrate. Their profile is either given by experimental data or produced with random numbers such that the artificially generated height spectra ressemble that of the real profiles. Randomly rough surfaces produce Gaussian tails in the P(p)'s, while they are exponential for experimentally determined topographies. This difference, however, does not affect significantly the true contact area, which, for the given real profile is about 20% larger than that of the random surface. Both surfaces obey Persson's contact mechanics theory reasonably well.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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