MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790680983 · doi:10.1111/maps.13067

Iron meteorite bulk densities determined via 3‐D laser imaging

2018· article· en· W2790680983 on OpenAlex
Christopher S. Fry, C. Samson, P. J. A. McCausland, M. Ralchenko, T. McLeod

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoriteLaserVolume (thermodynamics)Iron meteoriteOpticsGeologyMaterials scienceMineralogyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study tested the feasibility of using 3‐D laser imaging to measure the bulk density of iron meteorites. 3‐D laser imaging is a technique in which a 3‐D model of an object is built after aligning and merging individual detailed images of its surface. Assuming that the mass of the object is known, the volume of the model is calculated by software and an estimate of bulk density can be obtained by dividing mass by volume. The 3‐D laser imaging technique was used to determine the density of 46 fragments from 11 different iron meteorites. The technique proved to be robust and was applied successfully to study samples ranging close to four orders of magnitude in mass (8 g to 156 kg) and exhibiting a variety of surface textures (e.g., cracks, regmaglypts), reflectivities (e.g., polished surfaces, fusion crust, rust), and morphologies (e.g., sharp angular edges, shrapnel tendrils). Three metrics were considered to estimate the error associated with density measurements: the range accuracy of the laser camera, image alignment error, and inter‐operator variability during model building. Inter‐operator variability was the largest source of error and was highest when assembling models of samples which either lacked distinctive features or were very complex in shape. Excluding two anomalous Zagora samples where silicate inclusions might have lowered density, the densities measured using 3‐D laser imaging ranged from 6.98 to 7.93 g cm −3 , consistent with previous studies. There is overlap between bulk density and iron meteorite class, and therefore bulk density cannot be used in isolation as a classification criterion. It is a good indicator, however, of weathering effects and of the potential presence of low‐density inclusions.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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