Comparison of Concurrent Multiscale Methods in the Application of Fracture in Nickel
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a study of fracture in nickel using multiscale modeling. A comparison of six concurrent multiscale methods was performed in their application to a common problem using a common framework in order to evaluate each method relative to each other. Each method was compared in both a quasi-static case of crack tip deformation as well as a dynamic case in the study of crack growth. Each method was compared to the fully atomistic model with similarities and differences between the methods noted and reasons for these provided. The results showed a distinct difference between direct and handshake coupling methods. In general, for the quasi-static case, the direct coupling methods took longer to run compared to the handshake coupling methods but had less error with respect to displacement and energy. In the dynamic case, the handshake methods took longer to run, but had reduced error most notably when wave dissipation at the atomistic/continuum region was an issue. Comparing each method under common conditions showed that many similarities exist between each method that may be hidden by their original formulation. The comparison also showed the dependency on the application as well as the simulation techniques used in determining the performance of each method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it