MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909706237 · doi:10.1017/jog.2018.88

Probabilistic size effect law for mode II fracture from critical lengths in snow slab avalanche weak layers

2019· article· en· W2909706237 on OpenAlexafffund
D. M. McClung, Chris Borstad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsGeologyFracture toughnessSnowFracture (geology)SlabFracture mechanicsGeotechnical engineeringBrittlenessMechanicsMaterials scienceLawComposite materialGeophysicsPhysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT From field observations, dry snow slab avalanche initiation is associated with fracture within relatively thin weak layers under stronger, cohesive slabs. For risk-based avalanche prediction, it is important to understand the fracture properties of alpine snow. Alpine snow is a quasi-brittle material with a fracture mechanical size effect on nominal shear strength meaning that strength decreases with increasing specimen size. A related size effect is the critical length required for rapid propagation of a shear fracture. In that case, the probability of fracture increases with increasing crack length. In this paper, 45 sets of field-measured critical lengths are presented based on 591 individual tests. From analysis, a probabilistic size effect law based on critical lengths is derived analogous to the deterministic size effect law for nominal shear strength related to fracture mechanics. The new size effect law may be useful in applications, particularly since the critical length is easily measured in the field and it is a principal component of weak layer fracture toughness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207