MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996011127 · doi:10.2495/mc090141

Experimental determination of representative elementary volume of sands using X-ray computed tomography

2009· article· en· W1996011127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Omar Al Hattamleh, Marzie Razavi, Balasingam Muhunthan

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on engineering sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityComputed tomographyTomographyPlateau (mathematics)Volume (thermodynamics)Characterization (materials science)Materials scienceMonotonic functionMicrostructureGranular materialX-rayMineralogyVariation (astronomy)GeologyComposite materialOpticsPhysicsMathematicsNanotechnologyThermodynamicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a representative elementary volume (REV) provides an effective means of developing macroscopic measures in the description of granular materials. However, due to the difficulties associated with the measurement and characterization of granular microstructure the existence and size of an REV has remained largely conjectural. This study presents a systematic method to examine the characteristics of the REV using X-ray computed tomography images. The 3-D images of Silica sand, and Ottawa sand have been characterized using advanced image processing techniques. The porosity variation of Silica sand and Ottawa sand showed three characteristic regions: an initial fluctuation region due to microscopic variations, a constant plateau region, and a region with a monotonic increase/decrease due to heterogeneity. The results show that for Silica sand composed mainly of elongated particles the REV is between 5 to 11 times of D50 and for Ottawa sand composed mainly of subrounded particles is between 9 to 16 times of D50.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on engineering sciencesSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207