MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051316757 · doi:10.5539/esr.v1n2p98

Characterization of Density and Porosity of Rocks Samples from Ogun State of Nigeria

2012· article· en· W2051316757 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olukayode D. Akinyemi, Aderemi A. Alabi, Abimbola I. Ojo, Oyewole E. Adewusi

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityOgun stateOil shaleBulk densityParticle densityGeologyMineralogyLocal government areaEffective porositySoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringLocal governmentGeographyPhysicsArchaeologyVolume (thermodynamics)Soil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of densities of rocks is essential in petrological and geological studies, interpretation of gravity anomalies and ground water exploration.Fifty samples were collected from Abeokuta, Sagamu, Odeda, Ewekoro, Ibese Yewa North Local Government, Ijebu East Local Government and Obafemi Owode in Ogun State and dry bulk density, saturated density, porosity and particle density were determined. Results showed that Ewekoro shale has the lowest mean density of 1.35g/cm3 while Ibese, Yewa North Local Government limestone has the highest mean density of 3.9g/cm3.Porosity ranges from 0.030 to 0.640 with the granite in Odeda local government having the highest porosity and the shale in Ewekoro local government having the lowest porosity.Mean porosity for all the rocks samples in the seven Local Government Areas was 0.34. Test of significance revealed that there is significant relationship in the values of density of rock samples within the state.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207