MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418881573 · doi:10.1002/2016gl069219

The effect of crack orientation on the nonlinear interaction of a <i>P</i> wave with an <i>S</i> wave

2016· article· en· W2418881573 on OpenAlexafffund
James A. TenCate, Alison Malcolm, Xuan Feng, Michael C. Fehler

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChevron
KeywordsNonlinear systemAmplitudeOrientation (vector space)AnisotropySIGNAL (programming language)Scale (ratio)Work (physics)MechanicsAcousticsMaterials scienceGeologyPhysicsOpticsGeometryMathematicsComputer scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cracks, joints, fluids, and other pore‐scale structures have long been hypothesized to be the cause of the large elastic nonlinearity observed in rocks. It is difficult to definitively say which pore‐scale features are most important, however, because of the difficulty in isolating the source of the nonlinear interaction. In this work, we focus on the influence of cracks on the recorded nonlinear signal and in particular on how the orientation of microcracks changes the strength of the nonlinear interaction. We do this by studying the effect of orientation on the measurements in a rock with anisotropy correlated with the presence and alignment of microcracks. We measure the nonlinear response via the traveltime delay induced in a low‐amplitude P wave probe by a high‐amplitude S wave pump. We find evidence that crack orientation has a significant effect on the nonlinear signal.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207