Acoustic methods for measuring the porosities of porous materials incorporating dead-end pores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acoustic properties of porous materials containing dead-end (DE) pores have been proposed by Dupont et al. [J. Appl. Phys. 110, 094903 (2011)]. In the theoretical description, two physical parameters were defined (the dead-end porosity and the average length of the dead-end pores). With the knowledge of the open porosity (measured with non-acoustic methods), and the measurement of kinematic porosity (also called the Biot porosity in this article), it is possible to deduce the dead-end porosity. Two acoustic methods for measuring the Biot porosity for a wide range of porosities are proposed. These methods are based on acoustic transmission and on the low and high frequency behaviors of acoustic indicators. The low frequency method is valid for high porosities. It involves measurements in a transmission tube and the knowledge of the theoretical asymptotic behavior of the phase velocity at high frequencies. The high frequency method is based on ultrasonic measurements and on the high frequency asymptotic behavior of the transmission coefficient. It is well adapted for material with relatively low values of porosity. Good precision was found for both methods and materials containing dead end porosity were tested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".