2frictionalDecollementModel_AMSdataset_SievedVersion

For advanced comparison of AMS data from analogue models and comparing the sandbox preparation method, sieving vs scraping, a new AMS dataset is collected and published here for the associated publication.
This model follows the same setup and procedure of the dataset from: Schöfisch, Thorben (2020), “2frictionalDecollementModel_AMSdataset”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/j249tyfcnw.2
The difference between this model and the previous model is, that this new model is prepared by sieving instead of puring and scraping the material into the sandbox.

Note, that this model is a follow-up of the comparison of the datasets by Schöfisch, Thorben (2023), “Sieving vs Scraping - AMS dataset from Analogue Sandbox Models”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/cfczzr35t2.2

For further details, interpretation, comparison and discussion, I refer to the associated publication:
"To Scrape or to Sieve – Significance of the initial fabric in sandbox models simulating fold-and-thrust belts" by Schöfisch et al.

为开展类比砂箱模型磁各向异性（AMS，Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibility）数据的精细化对比研究，并对砂箱装料的两种制备方法——筛分法与刮制法——开展对比分析，本数据集为配套发表论文收录了全新的AMS数据集。

本模型沿用了Schöfisch, Thorben (2020) 发布的数据集的实验设置与流程：数据集名称为"2frictionalDecollementModel_AMSdataset"，收录于Mendeley Data，版本V2，DOI: 10.17632/j249tyfcnw.2。

本模型与前述模型的核心差异在于：本模型采用筛分法完成砂箱装料，而非此前的倾倒与刮制流程。

需说明的是，本模型是Schöfisch, Thorben (2023) 发布的数据集对比研究的后续工作，对应数据集为："Sieving vs Scraping - AMS dataset from Analogue Sandbox Models"，收录于Mendeley Data，版本V2，DOI: 10.17632/cfczzr35t2.2。

如需了解更多细节、解读、对比分析与讨论，请参阅本研究的关联学术论文：Schöfisch等撰写的《刮制还是筛分？模拟褶皱-冲断带的砂箱模型初始组构的意义》（原文标题："To Scrape or to Sieve – Significance of the initial fabric in sandbox models simulating fold-and-thrust belts"）。