MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250530826 · doi:10.1121/1.428697

The effect of moisture on compressional and shear wave speeds in unconsolidated granular materials

2000· article· en· W4250530826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Douglas Shields, Jim Sabatier, Mark Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceWater vaporVapour pressure of waterVapor pressureMoistureComposite materialSoda-lime glassSPHERESMineralogyThermodynamicsGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of water vapor on the shear and compressional wave speeds in two different kinds of glass beads and in Ottawa sand has been measured. The nominal diameter of the glass beads was 125 μm and of the sand, 500 μm. The measurements were made as the water vapor was introduced slowly into the evacuated material. The vapor pressure isotherm for the beads made of titanium-barium glass was fit reasonably well by the simple BET theory. For the Ottawa sand the BET theory fit the vapor pressure isotherm if the surface area of the grains was assumed to be three times the area calculated, assuming all of the grains were spheres with a diameter of 500 μm. In these two materials the vapor had little effect on the wave speeds. For beads made of lime glass, however, the wave speeds approximately double with the introduction of water vapor, and the vapor pressure isotherm had the BET shape only if the saturated vapor pressure was assumed to be lowered by 20%. These results have been explained by assuming that a chemical reaction occurred between the lime glass and the water to form a gel. [Work supported by the USDA.]

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207