MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1002282172 · doi:10.1520/gtj20140274

Non-Contact Sensing System to Measure Specimen Volume During Shrinkage Test

2015· article· en· W1002282172 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit Jain, Yu-Hsing Wang, D. G. Fredlund

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageVolume (thermodynamics)RADIUSSystem of measurementMaterials scienceComputationObservational errorMeasure (data warehouse)GeologyOpticsComputer scienceMathematicsComposite materialAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The shrinkage curve provides information of value for the interpretation of soil-water characteristic curve data. However, there is need for an accurate and precise volume measurement technique during the shrinkage test. This paper presented an inexpensive automated digital image processing technique, which allowed accurate and precise measurements of the soil specimen volume. The volume was computed by accurately measuring the radius and height over the entire lateral surface of specimen. The proposed volume measurement technique involved projecting a structured light laser on the soil specimen in order to provide the reference points for measurements. A 360° view of the specimen was then captured using a camera. High resolution images were then processed using functions developed within MATLAB. The computations also allowed the reconstruction of a 3D mesh model of the specimen. A validation test on a dummy object showed that the error in radius and height measurements at more than 75 % measurement points was less than ±0.05 and ±0.07 mm, respectively. A 99 % accuracy was achieved in the volume measurement of the soil specimen.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207