Trajectory Prediction Tool Comparisons for Spinning and Non-Spinning Projectiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of artillery must meet ever more stringent operational needs in the delivery of precise effects. Closely connected to meet these needs for the Canadian Forces, DRDC Valcartier studies solutions of guidance and control. DRDC Valcartier undertook to compare different suites of tools to predict the trajectory of projectiles in order to study the various concepts with a sufficient degree of confidence. Two reference projectiles were studied, namely, the Basic Finner and a 105 mm spin stabilized projectile. The MMCL (Munition Model Component Library) was benchmarked against PRODAS trajectory module using the aerodynamic coefficients predicted by PRODAS for the 105 mm configuration. Then, the MMCL package was validated using a spin-stabilized projectile. Then, trajectories of the reference model were simulated and compared for PRODAS and the MMCL. Finally, the trajectories obtained were compared with available experimental data. The results indicate that Missile Datcom generated aerodynamic coefficients are sufficiently accurate to predict the overall trajectories of the projectiles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".