MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417009552 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0655

Novel particle reconstruction and tracking algorithms to reveal 3D micromechanical behaviors of coral sands

2025· article· en· W4417009552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruidong Li, Zhen‐Yu Yin, Shaoheng He, Mengmeng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBreakageParticle (ecology)Tracking (education)AnisotropyShear (geology)Shear stressDeformation (meteorology)Discrete element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The micromechanical behaviors of coral sands remain poorly understood, primarily due to the inherent complexity of their highly irregular particle shapes, which pose significant difficulties for accurate three-dimensional (3D) particle reconstruction and tracking using X-ray tomography (µCT). To address these challenges, this study proposes a novel framework that integrates large vision models and discrete label optimization for efficient and accurate 3D particle reconstruction with optimal transport for robust particle tracking. This framework effectively resolves tracking both particle breakage and internal voids in coral sands, as validated by in situ mini-triaxial µCT tests. Compared with the state-of-the-art method, the proposed approach achieves comparable reconstruction accuracy (90%) while reducing computational time by 50%. For particle tracking, accuracy between adjacent µCT scans (corresponding to axial strain increments of 2.5%, 5%, and 10%) reached 95%, 86%, and 71%, respectively. Micromechanical analysis of coral sands further reveals that heterogeneous local shear deformation develops as axial strain increases, forming an X-shaped shear band. Significant fabric anisotropy emerges after peak stress, with preferred orientations aligning with the shear band. Moreover, particle breakage was observed to occur primarily during the strain-softening stage. Splitting induced by stress concentration was the predominant failure mode.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207