Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The validity of the constant propagation fracture energy postulation for dynamic fracture is discussed. As shown from existing direct and indirect experimental results, this assumption may not represent the physical reality. For spontaneous fractures, the fracture energy was shown to increase linearly with the crack length, and for dynamic fractures driven by known amplitude impulsive loading (generated by planar impact), the fracture energy was not a constant either. Despite of its phenomenogical origin, the Broberg’s theory developed for self-similar crack growth works well for both spontaneous fractures and dynamic fractures produced by well defined dynamic loading. In this theory, the fracture energy is not a constant. Furthermore, with given far-field loading or equivalent far-field loading, the crack speed is uniquely determined by a strength-like material parameter. This parameter is related to the cohesive strength as proposed by H. J. Gao for hyperelastic materials in the crack-tip process zone. It is proposed in this work that the strength-like parameter (or equivalently the constant fracture speed) is a better material parameter to describe the dynamic fracture propagation process for most dynamic fractures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".