Pore-Size Measurement from Eigenvalues of Magnetic Resonance Relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonground eigenvalues are widely disregarded in magnetic resonance relaxation measurements of porous media due to difficulties involved in their measurement, detection, and the derivation of physically meaningful parameters from them. Such nonground eigenvalues may be experimentally observed in relaxation measurements, such as the relaxation correlation of ${T}_{1}\ensuremath{-}{T}_{2}$, and yield information on the pore size and surface relaxivity of porous media without calibration through other independent measurements. Nonground eigenvalue analysis of ${T}_{1}\ensuremath{-}{T}_{2}$ measurements on Berea sandstone undertaken at three static magnetic fields produces pore sizes consistent with those obtained through x-ray microtomography and SEM measurements. Similar agreement is found for a Bentheimer sandstone with a more complex pore geometry. A phase-encoding imaging variant of this method measures the imbibition confinement-size profile in Berea sandstone. It is suggested that the existence of nonground eigenmodes may be much more prevalent in simple magnetic resonance relaxation measurements than previously considered. Therefore, it is possible to measure pore size by matching numerical Brownstein-Tarr solutions with those of experiments in a wide variety of samples and magnetic resonance methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".