Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
SignificanceMany protocols used in material design and training have a common theme: they introduce new degrees of freedom, often by relaxing away existing constraints, and then evolve these degrees of freedom based on a rule that leads the material to a desired state at which point these new degrees of freedom are frozen out. By creating a unifying framework for these protocols, we can now understand that some protocols work better than others because the choice of new degrees of freedom matters. For instance, introducing particle sizes as degrees of freedom to the minimization of a jammed particle packing can lead to a highly stable state, whereas particle stiffnesses do not have nearly the same impact.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9171605 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117622119 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!