MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337415033 · doi:10.1002/prep.201500246

Validation of the Gurney Model in Planar Geometry for a Conventional Explosive

2016· article· en· W2337415033 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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplosive materialAccelerationPlanarMechanicsRange (aeronautics)AcousticsOpticsPhysicsAerospace engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceChemistryClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The analytical model developed by Gurney is a seminal tool for analyzing the acceleration of metal flyers driven by detonating high explosives. Despite the continued relevance of this model, relatively few experimental validations over a wide range of flyer‐to‐charge mass ratios exist in the open literature. The current study presents experimental results for planar aluminum flyers propelled by a conventional explosive over a range of mass ratios varying from 4.65 to 0.03. Flyer velocity was measured via Heterodyne Laser Velocimetry (PDV), permitting a continuous measurement of the acceleration process. Measured flyer velocities are compared to terminal velocity estimations from the Gurney model. Experimental terminal velocities are compared to the open face and asymmetric sandwich Gurney models. Excellent agreement is observed for terminal velocity predictions considering the gasdynamic simplifications inherent in the model formulation.

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)0.000
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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.193 · 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