Review of the Explosibility of Nontraditional Dusts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the explosion characteristics of three nontraditional dusts: nanomaterials, flocculent materials, and hybrid mixtures. Nanomaterials have a high likelihood of explosion with minimum ignition energies potentially less than 1 mJ. These low ignition energies may therefore allow nanomaterials to ignite due to electrostatic sparks, collision, or mechanical friction. The severity of nanomaterial explosions is affected by agglomeration and coagulation of the particles. Flocculent materials with a high length-to-diameter ratio exhibit explosion behavior patterns similar to those for spherical dusts. The length of flocculent particles plays a role in explosion likelihood which is not yet fully understood. High voltage discharge during the electrostatic flocking process is a common flocculent ignition hazard. Hybrid mixtures of a combustible dust and a flammable gas/vapor display a higher explosion severity and a lower minimum explosible concentration than that of the dust alone. Violent hybrid explosions may occur even if the dust and the gas/vapor are below their respective lean limit concentrations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".