MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515356698 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08238-y

Earthquake lubrication and healing explained by amorphous nanosilica

2019· article· en· W2515356698 on OpenAlexafffund
C. D. Rowe, Kelsey G. Lamothe, M. Rempe, Mark P. Andrews, T. M. Mitchell, Giulio Di Toro

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsLubricationForensic engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During earthquake propagation, geologic faults lose their strength, then strengthen as slip slows and stops. Many slip-weakening mechanisms are active in the upper-mid crust, but healing is not always well-explained. Here we show that the distinct structure and rate-dependent properties of amorphous nanopowder (not silica gel) formed by grinding of quartz can cause extreme strength loss at high slip rates. We propose a weakening and related strengthening mechanism that may act throughout the quartz-bearing continental crust. The action of two slip rate-dependent mechanisms offers a plausible explanation for the observed weakening: thermally-enhanced plasticity, and particulate flow aided by hydrodynamic lubrication. Rapid cooling of the particles causes rapid strengthening, and inter-particle bonds form at longer timescales. The timescales of these two processes correspond to the timescales of post-seismic healing observed in earthquakes. In natural faults, this nanopowder crystallizes to quartz over 10s-100s years, leaving veins which may be indistinguishable from common quartz veins.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207