A brief comparison of the frequency spectra from the Hussar 2011 and Priddis 2012 test shoots and the theoretical predictions of the Sharpe Hollow Cavity Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a brief investigation of the frequency spectra from the Hussar 2011 and Priddis 2012 test shoots conducted by CREWES and the theoretical predictions in regards to the Sharpe Hollow Cavity Model (SHCM), with the intended purpose of testing the viability of this model to predict the nature of elastic waves emitted by an explosive pressure source. It was found that the overall form of the frequency spectra predicted by the SHCM coincided with that of the data obtained in both Hussar and Priddis. The dominant frequency in each study decreased with increased charge size and there was also a loss in high-frequency content with smaller charges, which were two observations predicted by the SHCM. The data from Hussar however showed significant variation in the high-frequency content for all charge sizes compared to the frequency spectra obtained from Priddis. There was also a low-frequency roll-off in both field studies which was consistent with the frequency spectra resulting from the pressure pulse chosen for the SHCM in a previous study. Overall this data suggests that the SHCM can provide a viable theoretical framework for predicting the nature of elastic waves emitted from explosive pressure sources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".