MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Review of Discrete Element Method Research on Particulate Systems

2016· review· en· W2493188440 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesDiscrete element methodWeatheringFly ashGeotechnical engineeringPortland cementCivil engineeringSlag (welding)Environmental scienceEngineeringGeologyConstruction engineeringCementMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceWaste managementMetallurgyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes research done using the Discrete Element Method (DEM) and explores new trends in its use on Particulate systems. The rationale for using DEM versus the traditional continuum-based approach is explained first. Then, DEM application is explored in terms of geotechnical engineering and mining engineering materials, since particulate media are mostly associated with these two disciplines. It is concluded that no research to date had addressed the issue of using the DEM to model the strength and weathering characteristics of peaty soil-slag-Portland cement-fly ash combinations.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.279 · 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