Low basal friction‐controlled geometry and kinematics of accretionary wedges from analogue experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cohesion and friction coefficients are fundamental parameters of granular materials used in analogue experiments. Our six models, comprising two sets of quartz sand with a 0–3 mm thickness of basal glass beads, illustrate that accretionary wedges with high basal friction have relatively larger slope angles and heights, shorter wedge lengths, and larger numbers of faults with smaller spacings and displacements than wedges with low basal friction. It should be noted that the differences in the geometry and evolution of the two sets of homogeneous quartz sands are not distinct; however, the differences are substantial when the models have low basal friction of the glass beads. In particular, there are two different tendencies of growth in wedge height with progressive shortening, that is, progressive growth of wedge height with high basal friction and steady‐state growth of wedge height with basal glass beads. We thus infer that the wedge geometries in our experiments are preferentially controlled by the low basal friction achieved with glass beads. In particular, the basal décollement (even when thin) has a significant influence on the location and development of accretionary wedges, in contrast to the physical properties of brittle materials (e.g., friction coefficient and cohesion).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".