A methodology for the semi‐automatic digital image analysis of fragmental impactites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A semi‐automated digital image analysis method is developed for the comparative textural study of impact melt‐bearing breccias. This method uses the freeware software ImageJ developed by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Digital image analysis is performed on scans of hand samples (10–15 cm across), based on macroscopic interpretations of the rock components. All image processing and segmentation are done semi‐automatically, with the least possible manual intervention. The areal fraction of components is estimated and modal abundances can be deduced, where the physical optical properties (e.g., contrast, color) of the samples allow it. Other parameters that can be measured include, for example, clast size, clast‐preferred orientations, average box‐counting dimension or fragment shape complexity, and nearest neighbor distances (NnD). This semi‐automated method allows the analysis of a larger number of samples in a relatively short time. Textures, granulometry, and shape descriptors are of considerable importance in rock characterization. The methodology is used to determine the variations of the physical characteristics of some examples of fragmental impactites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".