MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantifying Morphology of Sands Using 3D Imaging

2014· article· en· W2004391928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khalid A. Alshibli, Andrew M. Druckrey, Riyadh I. Al‐Raoush, Taylor M. Weiskittel, Nickolay V. Lavrik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSphericityRoundness (object)Materials scienceParticle (ecology)GranulometryMorphology (biology)Particle sizeTexture (cosmology)Composite materialAggregate (composite)MineralogyGeologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle morphology plays a significant role in influencing engineering behavior of granular materials. Surface texture, roundness, and sphericity represent distinct multiscale measures needed to fully describe particle morphology. Most studies reported in the literature rely on two-dimensional (2D) projected images of particles with a few three-dimensional (3D) images that mostly focused on relatively large-size aggregate samples. In this paper, 3D synchrotron microcomputed tomography (SMT) was used to acquire high-resolution images of glass beads, F-35 Ottawa sand, #1 dry glass sand, GS#40 Columbia sand, Toyoura sand, and Hostun RF sand. New roundness and sphericity indexes are proposed and calculated for the samples based on 3D measurements of surface area, volume, and three orthogonal diameters of particles. In addition, the surface texture of particles were measured using optical interferometry technique. The measurements reported in this paper can serve as a good source for other researchers working on sands to build on these intrinsic particle properties to link engineering behavior of sands to their morphology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations155
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207