MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996012572 · doi:10.1111/maps.12267

A methodology for the semi‐automatic digital image analysis of fragmental impactites

2014· article· en· W1996012572 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Chanou, G. R. Osinski, R. A. F. Grieve

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDigital image analysisDigital imageGeologyImage (mathematics)SoftwareComputer scienceDigital image processingImage processingDimension (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Pattern recognition (psychology)MineralogyComputer visionMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207