Assessing the Risk of Bullet Ricochet from Waves
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 both littoral environments and the open ocean, assessing the risk of bullet ricochet from the water surface is important as friendly assets and possibly civilian infrastructure may be in close proximity to operations. Bullet ricochet from water is usually examined in a laboratory environment where bullets are fired at a level water surface. While this set-up is appropriate for replicating ricochet from ponds, puddles, or small water containers, it is less applicable to ricochet from large bodies of water that support a rich surface wave field. Here, a method is proposed to extend results of flat-water experiments to consider bullet ricochet from a wavy surface. It is shown that the critical angle above which ricochet does not occur and the likelihood of stable or tumbling ricochets depend on whether waves are present and in what direction those waves are traveling relative to the path of the incoming bullet. Modeling suggests that the risk of ricochet is reduced when wave crests are perpendicular to the direction of fire but waves also increase the variability of ricochet characteristics. It is therefore suggested that, when possible, wave effects be considered when assessing the risk of bullet ricochet from water.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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