MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896992897 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2018.0304

Uniformity of stresses inside a non-elliptical inhomogeneity interacting with a mode III crack

2018· article· en· W2896992897 on OpenAlexafffund
Xu Wang, Liang Chen, Peter Schiavone

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConformal mapStress fieldCauchy distributionStress (linguistics)Mode (computer interface)Matrix (chemical analysis)Field (mathematics)Stress intensity factorMechanicsMathematical analysisCauchy's integral formulaGeometryMaterials scienceMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysicsFracture mechanicsFinite element methodComposite materialInitial value problemComputer scienceEngineeringCauchy problemPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using conformal mapping techniques and the theory of Cauchy singular integral equations, we prove that it is possible to maintain a uniform internal stress field inside a non-elliptical elastic inhomogeneity embedded in an infinite matrix subjected to uniform remote stress despite the fact that the inhomogeneity interacts with a finite mode III crack. The crack can be modelled either as a Griffith crack or as a Zener–Stroh crack. Our analysis further indicates that the existence of the crack plays a key role in influencing the shape of the corresponding inhomogeneity but not the internal uniform stress field inside the inhomogeneity. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the solution.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207