Comparative Particle Analysis of Glauconite and Ottawa Sands through X-Ray Micro-Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a comparative study of two soils—Glauconite and Ottawa F65—utilizing X-ray micro-computed tomography (µCT) scan. The tendency of glauconite sand to transform from coarse to fine-grained material through particle crushing poses challenges in terms of stability and strength, particularly in foundation engineering and offshore site investigation. This paper investigates the particle size distribution and explores the subtleties of particle characteristics. Non-invasive µCT and 3D image analysis are used to measure and compare particle shape parameters: median aspect ratio (0.56 for Glauconite, 0.54 for Ottawa F65), median convexity is 0.86 for both soils, and median sphericity (0.81 for Glauconite, 0.83 for Ottawa F65). By drawing comparisons between the statistical data of particle shape parameters from both soils, insights are gained into their morphological characteristics. Additionally, fitted Johnson distributions are provided for 3D Aspect ratio, sphericity, and convexity which may be useful for discrete element method modeling of these soils.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".