Interpretation of sieve analysis data using the box-counting method for gravelly cobbles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fractal theory, the fractal dimension (D) is a measure of the complexity of particle distribution in nature. It can provide a description of how much space a particle set fills. The box-counting method uses squared grids of various sizes to cover the particles to obtain a box dimension. This sequential counting concept is analogous to the sieve analysis test using stacked sieves. In this paper the box-counting method is applied to describe the particle-size distribution of gravelly cobbles. Three approaches to obtain the fractal dimension are presented. In the first approach the data obtained from a classic laboratory sieve analysis are rearranged into a double-logarithmic plot, according to a fractal model, to obtain the fractal dimension of the particle collection. In addition, an equivalent number of covered grids on each sieve during the sieve analysis are counted to produce the box dimension. According to the box-counting method concept, a photo-sieving technique used in scanning electron microscope microstructure analysis is adopted for use on gravelly cobbles in the field. The box-counting method concept is capable of explaining the sieve analysis data to clarify the information on the particle-size distribution. Using photo-sieving to produce the fractal dimension from field photographs can provide another approach for understanding the particle-size distribution. However, the representative cross-profile should be chosen carefully. The composition of the particle-size distribution for gravelly cobbles with higher D values is more complicated than those at sites with smaller D values.Key words: sieve analysis, box-counting method, fractal dimension, particle-size distribution, gravelly cobbles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".