MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012526164 · doi:10.1029/2012je004202

A new method for the measurement of meteorite bulk volume via ideal gas pycnometry

2012· article· en· W2012526164 on OpenAlexaff
Shijie Li, Shijie Wang, Xiongyao Li, Yang Li, Shen Liu, Ian M. Coulson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeteoriteVolume (thermodynamics)Materials scienceGas pycnometerPorosityMineralogyOpticsGeologyPhysicsComposite materialAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, of the many techniques used to measure the bulk volume of meteorites, only three methods (Archimedean bead method, 3‐D laser imaging and X‐ray microtomography) can be considered as nondestructive or noncontaminating. The bead method can show large, random errors for sample sizes of smaller than 5 cm 3 . In contrast, 3‐D laser imaging is a high‐accuracy method even when measuring the bulk volumes of small meteorites. This method is both costly and time consuming, however, and meteorites of a certain shape may lead to some uncertainties in the analysis. The method of X‐ray microtomography suffers from the same problems as 3‐D laser imaging. This study outlines a new method of high‐accuracy, nondestructive and noncontaminating measurement of the bulk volume of meteorite samples. In order to measure the bulk volume of a meteorite, one must measure the total volume of the balloon vacuum packaged meteorite and the volume of balloon that had been used to enclose the meteorite using ideal gas pycnometry. The difference between the two determined volumes is the bulk volume of the meteorite. Through the measurement of zero porosity metal spheres and tempered glass fragments, our results indicate that for a sample which has a volume of between 0.5 and 2 cm 3 , the relative error of the measurement is less than ±0.6%. Furthermore, this error will be even smaller (less than ±0.1%) if the determined sample size is larger than 2 cm 3 . The precision of this method shows some volume dependence. For samples smaller than 1 cm 3 , the standard deviations are less than ±0.328%, and these values will fall to less than ±0.052% for samples larger than 2 cm 3 . The porosities of nine fragments of Jilin, GaoGuenie, Zaoyang and Zhaodong meteorites have been measured using our vacuum packaging–pycnometry method, with determined average porosities of Jilin, GaoGuenie, Zaoyang and Zhaodong of 9.0307%, 2.9277%, 17.5437% and 5.9748%, respectively. These values agree well with the porosities of fragments of which have been measured using the Archimedean bead method and 3‐D laser imaging. This method also may be applied to the study of rare samples in other fields (e.g., archeology and geology).

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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207