MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142538325 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2012.226

When does a granular material behave like a continuum fluid?

2012· article· en· W2142538325 on OpenAlexaff
John R. de Bruyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjectaMechanicsPhysicsGranular materialProjectileFluid motionClassical mechanicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A flowing granular material can behave like a collection of individual interacting grains or like a continuum fluid, depending in large part on the energy imparted to the grains. As yet, however, we have no general understanding of how or under what conditions the fluid limit is reached. Marston, Li & Thoroddsen ( J. Fluid Mech. , this issue, vol. 704, 2012, pp. 5–36) use high-speed imaging to investigate the ejection of grains from a granular bed due to the impact of a spherical projectile. Their high temporal resolution allows them to study the very fast processes that take place immediately following the impact. They demonstrate that for very fine grains and high impact energies, the dynamics of the ejecta is both qualitatively and quantitatively similar to what is seen in analogous experiments with fluid targets.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207