Reliability-based load factors for blast design
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
In this study the concepts of reliability are used to derive blast load factors. First, some objective criteria are proposed for the proper interpretation of pressure data gathered in arena tests. These criteria are applied to the pressure–time histories recorded during field tests involving live explosive detonated in contact with the ground. Three major shock wavefront parameters, including peak pressure, impulse, and positive phase duration are calculated. Next, statistical analysis is performed on these metrics to estimate their probability density functions and goodness-of-fit tests are carried out to gauge the appropriateness of each estimate. Using the best-fitting distribution for each wavefront metric, load factors are derived on the basis of two approaches. The first approach employs the percentiles of the three load metrics, each estimated using the pertinent probability distribution. The second approach uses concepts of reliability and presents load factors for low, medium, and high level of protection. The two sets of load factors are compared and the limitations of each approach are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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