MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can we study particle breakage in tomography images

2025· article· en· W7111185793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakageTracking (education)Particle (ecology)Computed tomographyParticle-size distributionCompression (physics)Particle size

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of particle breakage on the particle size distribution (PSD) of granular materials is a key element in many engineering applications. High-resolution micro-computed tomography has demonstrated that particle breakage can be observed under various conditions; however, many available methods lack continuous tracking. In this work, a novel and consistent image analysis pipeline, named Piece-by-Piece, is introduced to track fragmented particles from the onset of breakage through later stages. The goal is to provide a reliable tool, which is independent of the experiment analysed. Two different study cases are examined: a triaxial test on Ottawa sand particles and a one-dimensional compression test on zeolite granules. In the Ottawa sand test, breakage is successfully tracked throughout the entire experiment with a negligible loss of volume. In contrast, for the Zeolite granules the analysis is terminated before the conclusion of the test, although this does not suggest any deficiency in the tracking algorithm, but rather limitations in image resolution. These results show that continuous particle tracking is possible and serve as a showcase for the enhanced capabilities of Piece-by-Piece, which could offer valuable insights into micro-scale breakage mechanics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207