MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084200632 · doi:10.1520/gtj103426

Morphological Characterization of Induced Fracture in Sandstone Using X-ray Computed Tomography Scanning

2012· article· en· W2084200632 on OpenAlexaff
W. M. S. B. Weerakone, R.C.K. Wong, Apostolos Kantzas

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)Aperture (computer memory)CalibrationGeologyAnisotropyTomographyCharacterization (materials science)MineralogyOpticsGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Computed tomography (CT) scanning is one of the viable techniques to evaluate apertures of rough walled fractures. However, quantitative evaluation of small fracture apertures using CT data requires use of calibration curves. In this study, the increments of fracture apertures were physically measured using the DEMEC points and the integrated CT numbers across the fracture aperture were calculated from the CT data for development of the calibration chart. This method overcomes the difficulty in fabrication of perfectly smooth rock fractures for the calibration process. It was demonstrated that the calibration curve developed from this method could be used to characterize variable aperture fractures in sandstone within a certain accuracy. In addition, geostatistic tools were used to quantify any anisotropy in fracture aperture. Results reveal that the induced fracture in sandstone displays a high aperture variation and undulation with an anisotropy in aperture distribution.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207