Field Evaluation of the Mine Hammer: A Landmine Neutralization Mechanism
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
<div class="htmlview paragraph">An antipersonnel landmine neutralizing mechanism, called the Mine Hammer, was designed with a prototype developed by the Agriculture and Bioresource Engineering Department, University of Saskatchewan and Defence Research and Development Canada -- Suffield. The Mine Hammer technology combined flail mechanisms and agriculture tillage interaction mechanics. The prototype was retrofitted to be powered by a 78.4 kW tractor and was field evaluated in August 2002. The test plots represented gravel road, prairie clay soil with stubble and full stand of Kochia weed for vegetation and simulated tree stump terrains. Dummy or mechanical replicas of antipersonnel landmines were placed at 0, 25, 50, 100 and 200mm depths. The Mine Hammer triggered and/or fragmented the replica landmines. Its mechanical neutralization effectiveness over the five test plots was 97%. The Mine Hammer produced a two layer overburden consisting of a loose till above a dense, compact soil layer. Non-neutralized mine replicas were buried within the compact layer and were not triggered when subjected to loads from human footsteps, jumping and stomping.</div>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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