MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frictional Melting Processes in Planetary Materials: From Hypervelocity Impact to Earthquakes

2010· article· en· W2149076338 on OpenAlexaff
J. G. Spray

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypervelocityMeteoriteImpact craterSlip (aerodynamics)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialMineralogyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frictional melting is the result of the conversion of mechanical deformation to heat under adiabatic conditions of slip. Within planetary materials, which are mainly natural ceramics, frictional melting occurs at high strain rates (typically >10 −2 s −1 ) and at slip velocities greater than 0.1 m s −1 . The pathway to friction melting is controlled by the mechanical properties of a rock's constituent minerals, especially fracture toughness. Minerals with the lowest fracture toughnesses and breakdown temperatures are preferentially comminuted and fused to form the melt. The product is a polyphase suspension comprising mineral and rock fragments enclosed in a liquid matrix. This cools to form the rock type known as pseudotachylyte, and at even higher strain rates, it forms shock veins in meteorites and in impact craters, which may contain high-pressure mineral polymorphs. The generation of melt on sliding surfaces can lubricate earthquake faults, facilitate the post-shock modification of impact craters, and make landslides more hazardous.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations198
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary SciencesSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207