MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200264755 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10509364.1

Experimental Monitoring of Nonlinear Wave Interactions Under Uniaxial Load

2021· preprint· en· W4200264755 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Malcolm, Lauren Hayes, Kamal Moravej, Andrey Melnikov, Kristin M. Poduska, Stephen Butt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintWorld Wide WebEmail authenticationComputer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now well-established that earthquakes change the seismic velocity of the near surface. There is certainly some understanding of what mechanisms are responsible for these changes, but there remain many questions. One of these open questions is how cracks and other microstructures within the rock control these changing velocities. Here we look at the nonlinear interaction of two waves, one of which (the PUMP) simulates the effect of an earthquake and the other (the probe) senses the changes in the travel time caused by the passage of the PUMP wave. We use a sandstone sample that is established to have a nonlinear response that depends on the orientation of the sample layering. We study two samples with different orientations of this layering, which we infer to be different orientations of the micro-structure. We show that the dependence of these changes on applied load are exponential, with a characteristic load of 11.4-12.5~MPa that is independent of sample orientation and probe wavetype (P or S); this value agrees with results from the literature.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207