MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997516851 · doi:10.1029/2019gl084787

Assessing Energy Budget of Laboratory Fault Slip Using Rotary Shear Experiments and Micro‐Computed Tomography

2020· article· en· W2997516851 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Zhao, Steven D. Glaser, Nicola Tisato, Giovanni Grasselli

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnergy budgetShear (geology)Energy (signal processing)TomographySlip (aerodynamics)SeismologyComputed tomographyGeologyFault (geology)PhysicsEngineeringAerospace engineeringStatisticsOpticsPetrologyMathematicsRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative assessment of the energy budget of earthquake events is one of the key aspects for understanding the physics of earthquakes. Investigation of laboratory fault slips under controlled conditions can provide insights on this important aspect of the natural and induced earthquakes. We conducted a rotary shear experiment under X‐ray micro‐computed tomography, which allowed in situ and operando measurement of macroscopic stresses and imaging of the newly formed fractures inside the sample. We estimate each component of the energy budget and found that friction energy loss (EF), fracture energy (EG), and radiated energy (ER) account for 70.16%, 15.68%, and 14.15% of the total energy budget, respectively. Quantitative analysis of the micro‐computed tomography images indicates that the energy consumed by creating slip‐induced off‐fault fractures ( ) accounts for only 0.3% of the total energy, less than 2% of the total EG.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207