Intrinsic elasticity of a textured transversely isotropic muscovite aggregate: Comparisons to the seismic anisotropy of schists and shales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anisotropic properties of phyllosilicate rocks are investigated through the modeling of the pore‐free “intrinsic” elasticity of a textured muscovite aggregate. The elastic constants were calculated for textures, as defined using orientation distribution functions (ODFs), ranging from perfectly aligned to completely random. The ODFs were described using a Gaussian distribution, the width of which is controlled by the standard deviation of the orientations of the crystal c axis with respect to the sample foliation plane under the assumption that the sample has hexagonal (transversely isotropic) symmetry. The values were obtained using the widely used Voigt‐Reuss‐Hill averaging techniques as well as the geometric mean average (GMA). The GMA is more physically meaningful in that it requires that the elastic constants determined in either the stiffness or the compliance domains be invertible. Comparisons between these different averages indicate that, strictly, the Voigt and Reuss values do not necessarily provide the limiting bounds as is expected for the isotropic case. Despite this, some characteristics of the elastic wave P wave anisotropy are only weakly dependent on the averaging procedure employed. The calculated elastic constants are converted to the anisotropic ɛ, δ , and γ parameters in order to allow for comparison to existing measurements in the literature. However, these “intrinsic” results are not intended to provide a measure of the properties of phyllites per se but to provide a reference against which more sophisticated models that incorporate porosity, layering, and composition may be constructed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".