MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469939315 · doi:10.1103/physreve.94.032604

Plastic response and correlations in athermally sheared amorphous solids

2016· article· en· W2469939315 on OpenAlexaff
F. Puosi, Jörg Rottler, J-L. Barrat

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Research CouncilInstitut Universitaire de FranceAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsShear matrixAmorphous solidShear (geology)Materials sciencePlasticityShear stressDissipationMolecular dynamicsShear rateRedistribution (election)Simple shearAmorphous metalCondensed matter physicsMechanicsThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysicsCrystallographyChemistryComputational chemistryRheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of irreversible deformation in low-temperature amorphous solids is due to the accumulation of elementary events, consisting of spatially and temporally localized atomic rearrangements involving only a few tens of atoms. Recently, numerical and experimental work addressed the issue of spatiotemporal correlations between these plastic events. Here, we provide further insight into these correlations by investigating, via molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the plastic response of a two-dimensional amorphous solid to artificially triggered local shear transformations. We show that while the plastic response is virtually absent in as-quenched configurations, it becomes apparent if a shear strain was previously imposed on the system. Plastic response has a fourfold symmetry, which is characteristic of the shear stress redistribution following the local transformation. At high shear rate we report evidence for a fluctuation-dissipation relation, connecting plastic response and correlation, which seems to break down if lower shear rates are considered.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207