MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562051114 · doi:10.14456/kkuenj.2016.44

Investigation of average optical density and degree of liquids saturation in sand by image analysis method

2016· article· en· W2562051114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sitthiphat Eua-apiwatch, Siam Yimsiri

Bibliographic record

VenueNRCT Data Center · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorous mediumSaturation (graph theory)Diesel fuelMaterials sciencePorosityGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite materialGeologyEngineeringMathematicsWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to apply an image analysis technique to investigate relationships between liquid saturations and Average Optical Densities (AODs) of four different porous media (i.e., Ottawa#3820, Ottawa#3821, Toyoura, and Chonburi sands).  Water and diesel are used as liquids. Twenty tested samples, including 10 samples of air-water two-phase system and 10 samples of air-diesel two-phase system with variations of diesel and water saturations, are prepared for each porous medium.  All samples are compacted into cylindrical containers then photos of each sample are taken by two digital cameras fitted with different band-pass filters.  The photos are analyzed by an in-house program to obtain average optical densities for each spectral band.  Relationships between AODs and liquid saturations are analyzed for each porous media.  The results indicate that AODs are linearly proportion to degree of water and diesel saturations for all porous media in both spectral bands except Chonburi sand.  The reason is due to the fact that Chonburi sand has a very rough surface which can absorb water and other liquids more than other media.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNRCT Data CenterSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207