MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965628700 · doi:10.1103/physreve.100.012908

From plastic flow to brittle fracture: Role of microscopic friction in amorphous solids

2019· article· en· W2965628700 on OpenAlexaff
Kamran Karimi, David Amitrano, Jérôme Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPlasticityShearing (physics)Amorphous solidMaterials scienceBrittlenessShear (geology)Fracture (geology)Deformation (meteorology)Shear bandComposite materialChemical physicsPhysicsCrystallographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasticity in soft amorphous materials typically involves collective deformation patterns that emerge on intense shearing. The microscopic basis of amorphous plasticity has been commonly established through the notion of "Eshelby"-type events, localized abrupt rearrangements that induce flow in the surrounding material via nonlocal elastic-type interactions. This universal mechanism in flowing disordered solids has been proposed despite their diversity in terms of scales, microscopic constituents, or interactions. Using a numerical particle-based study, we argue that the presence of frictional interactions in granular solids alters the dynamics of flow by nucleating micro shear cracks that continually coalesce to build up system-spanning fracturelike formations on approach to failure. The plastic-to-brittle failure transition is controlled by the degree of frictional resistance which is in essence similar to the role of heterogeneities that separate the abrupt and smooth yielding regimes in glassy structures.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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