Failure Mechanisms in Cemented Hydrate-Bearing Sands
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
A significant portion of our knowledge on gas hydrate-bearing sands comes from experimental results on laboratory-synthesized specimens. The failure mechanics are often interpreted using components of the stress–strain curves, which capture the specimen’s global (large-scale) response to shear. In this paper, we postulate on the microscale mechanics, which lead to a variety of interesting global behaviors. Two mechanisms of failure during shear are postulated: one involves debonding of the hydrate particle from the soil solid, and the other involves crushing or breakage through the hydrate itself. Both modes of failure lead to similar peak strengths, which arise from both friction and apparent cohesion induced by the hydrate bonding; however, the differences observed in postpeak softening may be attributed to the different failure mechanisms. Global specimen responses such as sudden strength loss, occurrence of double shear banding, and differences in postpeak behavior are manifestations of the microscale hydrate sand interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 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