MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compaction Model for Highly Deformable Particle Assemblies

2020· article· en· W3026945128 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Cantor, Manuel Cárdenas-Barrantes, Itthichai Preechawuttipong, Mathieu Renouf, Émilien Azéma

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPowder Metallurgy Techniques and Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChiang Mai UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsJammingCompactionStatistical physicsModulusMechanicsDiscrete element methodCompression (physics)Granular materialFinite element methodParticle (ecology)Materials sciencePhysicsClassical mechanicsGeologyComposite materialCondensed matter physicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The compaction behavior of deformable grain assemblies beyond jamming remains bewildering, and existing models that seek to find the relationship between the confining pressure P and solid fraction ϕ end up settling for empirical strategies or fitting parameters. Using a coupled discrete-finite element method, we analyze assemblies of highly deformable frictional grains under compression. We show that the solid fraction evolves nonlinearly from the jamming point and asymptotically tends to unity. Based on the micromechanical definition of the granular stress tensor, we develop a theoretical model, free from ad hoc parameters, correctly mapping the evolution of ϕ with P. Our approach unveils the fundamental features of the compaction process arising from the joint evolution of grain connectivity and the behavior of single representative grains. This theoretical framework also allows us to deduce a bulk modulus equation showing an excellent agreement with our numerical data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPowder Metallurgy Techniques and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207