MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318473497 · doi:10.1039/d2sm01636b

Is there a granular potential?

2023· article· en· W4318473497 on OpenAlexafffund
Josh M. Gramlich, Mahdi Zarif, Richard K. Bowles

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGranular materialStatistical physicsStatistical mechanicsEnsemble averageEntropy (arrow of time)Microcanonical ensembleMonte Carlo methodThermodynamicsKinetic energyParticle (ecology)Particle numberCanonical ensemblePhysicsMaterials scienceVolume (thermodynamics)Classical mechanicsMathematicsStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granular materials, such as sand or grain, exhibit many structural and dynamic characteristics similar to those observed in molecular systems, despite temperature playing no role in their properties. This has led to an effort to develop a statistical mechanics for granular materials that has focused on establishing an equivalent to the microcanonical ensemble and a temperature-like thermodynamic variable. Here, we expand on these ideas by introducing a granular potential into the Edwards ensemble, as an analogue to the chemical potential, and explore its properties using a simple model of a granular system. A simple kinetic Monte Carlo simulation of the model shows the effect of mass transport leading to equilibrium and how this is connected to the redistribution of volume in the system. An exact analytical treatment of the model shows that the compactivity and the ratio of the granular potential to the compactivity determine the equilibrium between two open systems that are able to exchange volume and particles, and that mass moves from high to low values of this ratio. Analysis of the granular potential shows that adding a particle to the system increases the entropy at high compactivity, but decreases the entropy at low compactivity. Finally, we demonstrate the use of a small system thermodynamics method for the measurement of granular potential differences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.040

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207