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
Aluminum nanopowders, because of their larger surface area, can increase the burning rate of propellants. It has been suggested that the powders could also enhance the detonation properties of certain explosives. For these reasons, an experimental study was undertaken to compare the performance of nanometric and micrometric aluminum in various explosives. No enhancement of performance was found in plastic-bonded explosives. In fact, a reduction of the detonation velocity was found in plastic-bonded explosives that are based on an energetic binder system. No increase of the detonation velocity was found in mixtures of aluminum and either Composition B or Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil, but a small increase in the heat of detonation was measured. The mixture of TNT and nano-aluminum demonstrated higher detonation velocities and heats of detonation. The increase was higher at small charge diameters. Nanometric aluminum was shown to reduce the critical diameter of such mixtures, and it is concluded that the nano-aluminum reacts faster than regular micron-size particles in TNT/Al compositions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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