Comparison of Laboratory Diffraction Contrast Tomography and Electron Backscatter Diffraction Results: Application to Naturally Occurring Chromites
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
Understanding how minerals are spatially distributed within natural materials and their textures is indispensable to understanding the fundamental processes of how these materials form and how they will behave from a mining engineering perspective. In the past few years, laboratory diffraction contrast tomography (LabDCT) has emerged as a nondestructive technique for 3D mapping of crystallographic orientations in polycrystalline samples. In this study, we demonstrate the application of LabDCT on both chromite sand and a complex chromitite sample from the Merensky Reef (Bushveld Complex, South Africa). Both samples were scanned using LabDCT and Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD), and the obtained results were rigorously evaluated using a comprehensive set of qualitative and quantitative characterization techniques. The quality of LabDCT results was accessed by using the "completeness" value, while the inaccuracies were thoroughly discussed, along with proposed potential solutions. The results indicate that the grain orientations obtained from LabDCT are comparable to that of 2D EBSD but have the advantage of collecting true 3D size, shape, and textural information. This study highlights the significant contribution of LabDCT in the understanding of complex rock materials from an earth science perspective, particularly in characterizing mineral texture and crystallography in 3D.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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