MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mineral Characterization using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM): A Review of the Fundamentals, Advancements, and Research Directions

2023· review· en· W4388139256 on OpenAlexafffund
Asif Ali, Ning Zhang, Rafael M. Santos

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)NanotechnologyScanning electron microscopeArtificial intelligencePaceComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is a powerful tool in the domain of material science, mining, and geology, owing to its enormous potential to provide unique insights into the micro and nanoscale worlds. This comprehensive review discusses the background development of SEM, basic SEM operation including the specimen preparation and imaging process, and fundamental theoretical calculations underlying the SEM operation. It provides foundational understanding to the engineers and scientists, who never got a chance to dig in-depth into the SEM, to understand the working and development of this robust analytical technique. The present review covers how SEM has been serving as a crucial tool in mineral characterization, with specific discussions on the working and research fronts of SEM-EDX, SEM-AM, SEM-MLA, and QEMSCAN. With automation gaining pace in the development of all spheres of technology, the understanding of uncertainties in SEM measurements is very important. The constraints in mineral phase identification by EDS spectra and sample preparation are conferred. In the end, future research directions for SEM are analyzed with the possible incorporation of machine learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence tools, for automating the process of mineral identification, quantification, and efficient communication with the researchers, so that the analytical process robustness and objectivity can be improved, and the analysis time and the involved costs can be brought down. This review also discusses the idea of integrating robotics with SEM, to make the equipment portable, so that further mineral characterization insights can be gained not only on earth but also on other terrestrial grounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.260
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207