MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049986273 · doi:10.1029/2005je002623

Measuring the bulk density of meteorites nondestructively using three‐dimensional laser imaging

2006· article· en· W2049986273 on OpenAlexaff
David L. Smith, C. Samson, R. K. Herd, Adam Deslauriers, J.‐E. Sink, I. Christie, Richard E. Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNeptec Design Group (Canada)Geological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteLaserMaterials scienceOpticsVolume (thermodynamics)Surface roughnessRaster graphicsSurface finishGeologyRemote sensingMineralogyPhysicsComputer scienceAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fragile and unique nature of meteoritic material requires a method of density measurement that is accurate yet nondestructive. This is difficult to achieve using conventional methods. In this study, the bulk density of eleven meteorite fragments which vary in shape, size, surface roughness, porosity, and reflectance has been determined using three‐dimensional (3‐D) laser imaging. An auto‐synchronized laser camera raster scanned the surface features of each meteorite without contact and to a high degree of precision. Visualization software was used to align several scans into a closed model and to compute its volume. The mass having been predetermined, the density was then easily computed. Three‐dimensional laser imaging is the least invasive method of density measurement currently in use. The precision of the approach is less than 1%. The densities determined using 3‐D laser imaging compare very well with previously published values, based on a variety of different measurement techniques. The average difference is 3.4% and can be attributed to the presence of heterogeneities and to the limited amount of comparative data available. For nine out of the eleven samples studied, the densities determined using 3‐D laser imaging are higher than previously published results. Friction between fluid and container, and bead compaction might have led to an overestimation of the volume measured using Archimedean methods. In addition to volume measurements, 3‐D images of rock samples can yield detailed information on surface properties from a distance. The technique could be used for semiautonomous planetary geological exploration.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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