MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013956243 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2020.16

Quantification of the morphology of gold grains in 3D using X-ray microscopy and SEM photogrammetry

2020· article· en· W3013956243 on OpenAlexaff
François-Xavier Masson, Georges Beaudoin, Denis Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSphericityRoundness (object)GeometryPhotogrammetryShape factorCurvatureShape analysis (program analysis)GeologyAspect ratio (aeronautics)Particle (ecology)Materials scienceMorphology (biology)MineralogyMathematicsComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The shape of gold is widely used in mineral exploration and in sedimentology to estimate the distance of transport from the source to the site of deposition. However, estimation of the morphology is based on qualitative observations or on the quantification of shape in 2D. The 3D analysis of grain shape is useful for accurate morphometric quantification and to evaluate its volume, which is related to particle size. This study compares X-ray 3D microscope and 3D SEM photogrammetry to reconstruct the shape of gold particles. These new methods are exploited to quantify the shape of gold grains 85 to 300 μm in size. The shape parameters, such as axial lengths, surface area, volume, diameter of curvature of all corners, and diameter of the largest inscribed sphere and smallest circumscribed sphere are measured on a particle in order to estimate shape factors such as flatness ratios, shape indices, sphericity, and roundness. Most shape parameters and shape factors estimated on the same gold grain with simple geometry are similar between the two approaches. This result validates these methods for the 3D description of gold particles with simple morphology, while providing a methodology for describing grains with more complex geometry.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207