MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018801938 · doi:10.1139/p04-001

High-altitude projectile motion

2004· article· en· W2018801938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pirooz Mohazzabi, Jacob Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsProjectileAtmosphere (unit)Density of airRange of a projectileExponential functionAltitude (triangle)Power lawRange (aeronautics)Projection (relational algebra)Quadratic equationComputational physicsMeteorologyMathematical analysisGeometryAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that the optimal projection angle corresponding to the maximum range of a projectile moving in air is less than 45° for low-power resistance laws such as the linear or quadratic law. We show that this result is valid only for a uniform atmosphere, in which the density of air is a constant. In a more realistic atmosphere, such as an exponential atmosphere, where the air density decreases with altitude, and specially for high-speed projectiles, the optimal projection angle is much greater than 45°.PACS No.: 45.50.Dd

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207