MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7054863735

Can dynamic recrystallization and bulk pressure melting explain characteristics of ice crushing?

2002· article· en· W7054863735 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecrystallization (geology)Dynamic recrystallizationThermal conductionContext (archaeology)Displacement (psychology)Sea ice growth processes
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic Recrystallization and bulk pressure melting, accompanied by extensive microcracking, in localized zones of high pressure, have been put forward by some researchers (Jordaan, 2001; Jordaan et al., 1999) as the dominant mechanisms governing the behavior of ice during impact and indentation. This paper outlines the fundamental physics of ice recrystallization and pressure melting and then examines the viability of the proposed ice crushing model in the context of existing lab and field data. Questions arise when the time dependent aspects of recrystallization and heat conduction are considered in view of the high strain rates typically imposed on ice during impacts and indentation. The model exhibits incompatibilities with detailed in situ pressure and temperature measurements and simultaneous visual data over a wide range of scales. Similarly, the model does not adequately explain the relative displacement measurements of ice and indentors. Thin sections of indented natural ice and large flaw-free single crystals are discussed in association with these conclusions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207