Characterization of pore and grain size distributions in porous geological samples – An image processing workflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An image processing workflow is presented for the characterization of pore and grain size distributions in porous geological samples from X-ray microcomputed tomography (μCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images. The pore and grain size distributions of five sandstone samples including Berea, Buff Berea, Nugget, Castlegate, and Bentheimer, and one carbonate sample, Indiana limestone, are extracted using the proposed workflow. Two-dimensional size distributions acquired from SEM images were found to be biased toward smaller sizes misrepresenting the actual 3D distributions. Stereological techniques unfolded the measured 2D size distributions from SEM images to 3D distributions comparable with μCT results. While larger pores and grains can easily be detected from μCT and SEM images, the quantification of small-scale heterogeneities is severely influenced by their limits of resolution. We show that microstructural details resolved by SEM can significantly impact the pore and grain size distributions in sandstone and carbonate rock samples. For example, SEM-resolved microporosities in Indiana limestone result in bimodal distributions of pore and grain sizes, whereas μCT observations exhibit unimodal distributions. The acquired images and processed results are openly available and may be used by researchers investigating image processing, magnetic resonance relaxation or fluid flow simulations in natural rocks. The proposed methodology can be implemented to process μCT and SEM images of natural rocks as well as other types of porous materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".