MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391425105 · doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2024.119493

The Janssen effect and the Chini ordinary differential equation

2024· article· en· W4391425105 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Rogers, George Dyck, Jitendra Paliwal, Kurt Hildebrand, Michael D. Montross, Aaron P. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenuePowder Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFractional Differential Equations Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMitacsUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsOrdinary differential equationMathematicsDifferential equationMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Janssen effect describes the increase in pressure with depth in granular materials. However, the original Janssen formulation treats the density as constant. In this work, we examine parametric density models that depend on both pressure and moisture content and allow for temperature dependence to be easily included. We focus on physically-motivated empirical models that are built on power-law terms. These power-law terms correspond to thermodynamic equations of state, such as the ideal gas law, and polytropic processes. When coupled with the Janssen ordinary differential equation (ODE), these power-law models have the form of a Chini ODE. We study the properties of the Chini ODE for both constant and variable coefficients. We review Chini’s method for transforming these equations into separable forms and the conditions under which this approach fails. We derive a variety of novel expressions, including a critical value for the vertical-to-horizontal stress ratio which varies with depth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePowder TechnologySame topicFractional Differential Equations SolutionsFrench-language works237,207