A mathematical determination of the pore size distribution and fractal dimension of a porous sample using spontaneous imbibition dynamics theory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wallace sandstone has been extensively used by the construction industry for a long time in Nova Scotia. Apart from oxide analysis and a few strength-related parameter data found on some websites, petrophysical data regarding pore-sized distribution and fractal dimension are lacking. In the petroleum engineering literature, the spontaneous imbibition dynamics mechanism has been modeled where imbibition time has been linked to imbibition rise. One of the models links imbibition time to imbibition rise through a group of parameters that integrate the fractal dimension and sediment tortuosity. Based on the assumption of a bundle of parallel capillary tubes model found in the petrophysical literature, we have used the spontaneous imbibition model to derive an equation that links fractal dimension to porosity and permeability. Using literature source data on Wallace sandstone core samples, we have calculated the fractal dimension and pore size distribution using our equation. Results show that this sandstone has a significant level of heterogeneity. Calculation using another literature source data shows that our equation calculates fractal dimensions that are closer to those reported for the capillary pressure method. Although the assumption of bundle of parallel capillary tubes leads to deviations in calculated fractal dimensions using literature source data with experimentally determined porosity, permeability and fractal dimensions, our equation calculates meaningful values of fractal dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it