MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124922997 · doi:10.1785/0220200242

If Not Brittle: Ductile, Plastic, or Viscous?

2021· article· en· W3124922997 on OpenAlexaff
Kelin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrittlenessTerminologyGeologyConfusionDeformation (meteorology)UnificationGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceLinguisticsComposite materialPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Integrating earthquake studies with geodynamics requires knowledge of different modes of permanent deformation of rocks beyond seismic failure. However, upon stepping out of the realm of brittle failure, students find themselves in a zone of terminology conflict. Rocks below the brittle shallow part of the lithosphere are said to be ductile, plastic, or viscous, yet in many papers what is obviously brittle deformation is said to be plastic. In this EduQuakes article, I explain the origin of this conflict and how to handle it. The primary reason for the conflict is that the word plastic is used by one research community to describe viscous deformation but by another community to describe permanent deformation that is not viscous. To the former community, emphasis is on microscopic deformation mechanisms. To the latter community, emphasis is on whether the macroscopic deformation is time dependent. Using a Coulomb continuum to approximate the effects of numerous brittle faults adds another level of complexity. It is futile to expect a unification of terminology any time soon, but with some basic knowledge one can live with this situation without suffering scientific confusion.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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