Deep-Learning-Based Automatic Mineral Grain Segmentation and Recognition
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
A multitude of applications in engineering, ore processing, mineral exploration, and environmental science require grain recognition and the counting of minerals. Typically, this task is performed manually with the drawback of monopolizing both time and resources. Moreover, it requires highly trained personnel with a wealth of knowledge and equipment, such as scanning electron microscopes and optical microscopes. Advances in machine learning and deep learning make it possible to envision the automation of many complex tasks in various fields of science at an accuracy equal to human performance, thereby, avoiding placing human resources into tedious and repetitive tasks, improving time efficiency, and lowering costs. Here, we develop deep-learning algorithms to automate the recognition of minerals directly from the grains captured from optical microscopes. Building upon our previous work and applying state-of-the-art technology, we modify a superpixel segmentation method to prepare data for the deep-learning algorithms. We compare two residual network architectures (ResNet 1 and ResNet 2) for the classification and identification processes. We achieve a validation accuracy of 90.5% using the ResNet 2 architecture with 47 layers. Our approach produces an effective application of deep learning to automate mineral recognition and counting from grains while also achieving a better recognition rate than reported thus far in the literature for this process and other well-known, deep-learning-based models, including AlexNet, GoogleNet, and LeNet.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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