Void distributions in samples of Ottawa sand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The void distribution of saturated specimens of Ottawa sand is presented. The presence of water inside the sand specimen is detected using the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique. The void distribution of the sample was determined from the image. The specimen was prepared in a non-metallic triaxial cell and was put insie a MRI apparatus to obtain the image. Two sample preparation methods (wet tamping and dry pluviation) were used to illustrate the uniformity of the samples in the initial state. The void distribution along the height of the sample and the three-dimensional orientational void distribution at different locations inside the sample were analysed. The results indicate that the sample generated by the dry-pluviation method is more uniform than the sample generated by the wet-tamping method. When the wet-tamping sample preparation technique is used, the dense sample is more uniform than the loose sample. The development of voids was investigated by a sample loaded inside the MRI device under drained compression condition. The void distribution along the height of the sample at different stages was observed. This work has demonstrated the feasibility of using the MRI technique to examine void distribution in granular material.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it