MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of mode coupling and location of rotational axis on glacial induced rotational deformation in a laterally heterogeneous viscoelastic earth

2006· article· en· W2156399339 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Wu, Hansheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotation around a fixed axisSpherical harmonicsViscoelasticityMechanicsAmplitudePhysicsCoupling (piping)HarmonicsMantle (geology)Classical mechanicsGeophysicsMaterials scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A R Y Lateral viscosity variations introduce two problems in the study of glacial induced rotational deformation. One of them is mode coupling. The other arises because centrifugal deformations are dependent on the location of the rotational axis relative to the lateral heterogeneities in the earth. The effects of mode coupling and displacement of the rotational axis on centrifugal induced potential perturbations are studied on a layered earth with lateral viscosity variations inferred from seismic tomography. The modified coupled Laplace-finite-element method is used to calculate the centrifugal deformations. It is found that mode coupling is weak because the lateral viscosity variation in the deep mantle is relatively small. The effect of displacing the rotational axis is to shift the spectral amplitude from degree 2 and order 0 harmonic to other orders within degree 2 as is required for changing the orientation of the applied centrifugal potential, but again the leakage of spectral amplitude to other harmonics are small. This implies that rotational motion in an earth with lateral viscosity variations can be approximated by the calculation of the corresponding laterally homogeneous earth.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207