From Zero-Initialization to Physics-Based Determination: A Paradigm for Modeling Rock Damage under Cyclic Hardening
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses a fundamental flaw in how damage mechanics is applied to rocks: the incorrect assumption that rock starts with zero damage, ignoring its natural porosity. This leads to inaccurate models, especially when simulating repeated stress cycles. We used CT scanning to observe how microscopic pores and cracks in rock evolve under cyclic loading. Results show that under low stress, pores close, causing hardening, while under high stress, cracks grow, causing softening. We found that when porosity minimizes under repeated low stress, hardening stops, indicating a nearly damage-free state. Based on this, we propose a practical method: pre-conditioning rock samples with high-cycle loading at 50% of their strength to establish this damage-free baseline. This allows for accurate calculation of the initial damage, providing a more realistic and widely applicable framework for predicting rock behavior in engineering. This dataset includes the experimental data and CT slices related to the above research content.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it