MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108070042 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202534010009

Impact of the fines content on stress fluctuations in bi-disperse granular mixtures during triaxial tests

2025· article· en· W7108070042 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsGranular materialStress (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Magnitude (astronomy)Range (aeronautics)Content (measure theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this experimental study, the influence of fines content and specimen preparation method on the mechanical behavior of granular mixtures have been explored by studying stress fluctuations that occur when the mixtures are subjected to drained triaxial tests. The magnitude and distribution of stress fluctuations are related to the changes in the microstructure of the ensemble. Bi-disperse granular mixtures of glass beads with a size ratio of 8.8, over the entire range of fines content F c (0% to 100%) were considered. The specimen were prepared using two standard specimen preparation techniques, dry deposition and moist tamping to recreate two distinct microstructures. It is found that in the under-filled regime where the stress transmission is mainly governed by the coarse particles, a significant increase in the magnitude of fluctuations is observed as the fines content, F c , increases, and on the contrary in the overfilled regime, where the load bearing structures are mainly made up of fines, fluctuations are found to decrease with further increase in F C which suggests that larger the interplay between coarse and fine particles, larger the fluctuations. Further investigation of these fluctuations in the context of critical avalanche dynamics or Self Organized Criticality (SOC) is performed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207