MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158857579 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12881

Elemental Characterization and Discrimination of Nontoxic Ammunition Using Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X‐Ray Analysis and Principal Components Analysis

2015· article· en· W2158857579 on OpenAlexaff
Seth R. Hogg, Brian C. Hunter, Ruth Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State University
KeywordsAmmunitionScanning electron microscopePrincipal component analysisMaterials scienceSample (material)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryComposite materialMetallurgyEnvironmental chemistryChromatographyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns over the toxic by-products produced by traditional ammunition have led to an increase in popularity of nontoxic ammunition. In this work, the chemical composition of six brands of nontoxic ammunition was investigated and compared to that of a road flare, which served as an environmental source with similar composition. Five rounds of each brand were fired while a further five were disassembled and the primer alone was fired. Particles collected from all samples, including the road flare, were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray analysis. Common elements among the different ammunition brands included aluminum, potassium, silicon, calcium, and strontium. Spectra were then subjected to principal components analysis in which association of the primer to the intact ammunition sample was generally possible, with distinction among brands and from the road flare sample. Further, PCA loadings plots indicated the elements responsible for the association and discrimination observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207