MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168728774 · doi:10.1002/prep.200390019

Effect of Porosity on the Burn Rate of a Gas‐Generating Composition

2003· article· en· W2168728774 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantPorosityBurn rate (chemistry)Materials scienceVolume fractionComposite numberVolume (thermodynamics)Fraction (chemistry)Composite materialChemistryChromatographyThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the course of the development of an oxidizer‐based extruded composite propellant for use as gas generant, a simple model to describe and evaluate the actual porosity using simple methods was developed. It is briefly described and used to assess the influence of porosity on the burn rate of propellants produced. For the formulation studied the presence of microporosities does not seem to significantly influence the burn rate. On the other hand, volume fraction of porosities in extruded composition grains can exert a large influence and can increase considerably under thermal treatment with a resulting augmentation in burn rate.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · 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