Development of a Mechanical Device for Landmine Neutralization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of mechanical devices such as chain flails for landmine neutralization and/or area reduction has the potential of greatly aiding landmine clearance. However, mechanical clearance methods have not been fully accepted in the landmine clearance community due to a lack of knowledge and scientific data concerning the actual soil-tool interaction and the landmine clearance effectiveness. The research objective was to develop a mechanical device that will deliver sufficient force to produce adequate ground deflection for detonating typical antipersonnel landmines at depths up to 200 mm. Other design parameters included design simplicity, high durability with low and ease of maintenance and flexible operation. A design matrix was employed to select an appropriate design for further analysis, resulting in preliminary testing and evaluation of a Tamper and Jackhammer. It was concluded that a tamper design resulted in superior demining capabilities. A final testing phase was designed on further evaluation of the demining effectiveness of the tamper and to determine optimal operational parameters between two shoe sizes and the number of pass applications. Tests were conducted using the Terra Mechanics Rig facility at the University of Saskatchewan. The results revealed that the small tamper shoe configuration performed better than that of the large shoe, but only marginally. Results also indicated the optimal application was two passes. It was concluded that the optimal shoe configuration would be associated with the demining environment where the device would be used.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".