Characterizing microstructures with representative tortuosities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the numerical characterization of microstructures by the concept of tortuosity. After a brief review of geometric tortuosities, some definitions are considered for a benchmarking analysis. The focus is on the M-tortuosity definition, which is revised by expliciting the link to percolation theory, among other things. This operator fits with the analysis of real samples of materials whatever their complexity. A contribution of this paper is a new formulation of the M-tortuosity , making it generic to many situations. Additionally, the comparison of the various tortuosimetric descriptors, state-of-the-art definitions and M-tortuosity , is proposed by considering several scenarios thanks to stochastic multi-scale models of complex materials. The relationships with porosity, morphological heterogeneity and structural anisotropy are investigated. The results highlight the similarities and differences between the descriptors while attesting that the M-tortuosity is equivalent to the state-of-the-art definitions, for a potential use in diffusion and conductivity analyses. Moreover, the M-tortuosity handles correctly situations where state-of the-art algorithms fail. The anisotropic case highlights some limitations of the state-of-the-art definitions behaving differently according to the given propagation direction. In the case of unknown propagation and irregular piece of materials, the M-tortuosity provides a unique tortuosity value representative of the whole microstructure while detecting the anisotropy. These operators are freely available within the plug im! platform.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".