MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412989812 · doi:10.56952/arma-2025-0415

Comparison of PKN asymptotes in porous elastic media

2025· article· en· W4412989812 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Peirce

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsymptoteComputer sciencePorous mediumPorosityMaterials scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: In a recent asymptotic analysis Peirce (2024) of the nonlocal PKN formulation Adachi and Peirce (2008) for a slender rectangular hydraulic fracture propagating in a permeable elastic medium, two distinct classes of tip asymptotes were identified. These two distinct classes of tip asymptote are the result of different limiting processes that were used to derive the asymptotes. The first class of asymptote, is established by a local analysis in the tip region of the nonlocal PKN model equations. The second class of asymptote, is established by combining the expression for the average fracture aperture and the appropriate plane strain asymptote for the desired mode of propagation. These asymptotes differ by from one another by between 4% - 9%. Since these two classes of limit asymptotes are equally valid, this paper aims to identify which asymptote yields a closer approximation to a fully planar model of a PKN fracture. The fully planar model is assumed to be endowed with the complete multiscale asymptote for a planar a hydraulic fracture in a 3D elastic medium that can propagate and arrest after shut-in, and which combines the competing processes of viscous dissipation, toughness energy release, and fluid leak-off.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207