MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2096089982 · doi:10.1139/p02-146

Sliding along Coulombic shear faults in ice

2003· article· en· W2096089982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew L. Fortt, E. M. Schulson, E. W. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBrittlenessShear (geology)Power lawMechanicsComposite materialMaterials scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New experiments have been performed on the resistance to inelastic deformation through frictional sliding along naturally-formed Coulombic shear faults in ice Ih. Coulombic faults mark terminal failure of virgin material when loaded rapidly under a moderate degree of confinement. The experiments were performed on S2 fresh-water ice at –10°C, proportionally loaded biaxially across the columns along a variety of all-compressive paths. Two kinds of behavior were observed. At higher sliding velocities (8 × 10–2 and 8 × 10–1 mm s–1) sliding was noisy and the process exhibited velocity weakening. At a lower sliding velocity (8 × 10–4 mm s–1) sliding was quiet and fault healing occurred. The two kinds of sliding are indicative of brittle-like (at higher speeds) and ductile-like (at lower speeds) behavior, and are explained in terms of fracture and creep. Within the brittle regime, a power law describes the relationship between the shear strength of the fault and the normal stress across it at the onset of sliding, while Coulomb's law describes the relationship once sliding has progressed by about 2 mm. PACS No.: 61.72Nn

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→