MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091404028 · doi:10.1002/esp.360

Temporal aspects of the abrasion of microphytic crusts under grain impact

2002· article· en· W2091404028 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiocrusts and Microbial Ecology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrustGeologyPenetration (warfare)Grain sizeGeophysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wind‐tunnel simulations of the response of two moss crusts to grain impact indicate that, given sufficient time, these surfaces will deteriorate under very low wind velocities only slightly above u * t for the loose, saltating grains. In parallel with these experiments, the frequency distributions of ultimate strength and penetration energy were determined for each of the two crust types via penetrometry. Pohlia was found to be stronger than Tortula ; but, even so, both of these crusts had ultimate strengths 20–350 times higher than the force delivered by a single grain impacting each surface at a velocity of 1 ms −1 . In comparison, the modulus of deformation and penetration energy data were very similar for the two surface types, especially for the weakest areas of crust development. This observation is in accord with the wind‐tunnel simulations that also found no consistent difference in the response of these two crust types to impact. In comparison with crusts formed by clay and salt, fibrous microphytic crusts are morphologically complex and typically weak. The notable elasticity of these surfaces does reduce the force of grain impact, and thereby provides some protection against rupture. One of the central conclusions of this study suggests that not only is the particle kinetic energy at impact important in crust breakdown, but also tiny fractures at points of localized stress concentration contribute to a progressive reduction in the integrity of the filament net. In some of the experiments conducted as part of this study, up to 50 or more minutes of constant bombardment was required to produce small abrasion marks on selected areas of the microphytic crust. This study prepares a foundation for future experiments needed to examine the breakdown of complex crusts formed in nature. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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