MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341391357 · doi:10.1002/prep.201500319

Empirical Correlation of Minimum Burning Pressures of Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions

2016· article· en· W2341391357 on OpenAlexafffund
Sek Kwan Chan, Richard Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsSodium nitrateAmmonium perchlorateChemistryNitrateAmmoniumActivation energyInorganic chemistryAmmonium nitrateSodiumCombustionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Experimental minimum burning pressures (MBP) of emulsions with solution phase containing ammonium nitrate/water, ammonium nitrate/sodium nitrate/water, and ammonium nitrate/sodium nitrate/sodium perchlorate/water are investigated. A correlation is proposed to relate the MBP’s with the combustion temperatures. The formulations containing sodium nitrate or sodium perchlorate have much lower MBP’s and can be accounted for by an activation energy of 150.7 kJ mol−1 obtained from literature for ingredients having catalyzing effects on the reaction of ammonium nitrate, e.g. sodium nitrate. The ammonium nitrate/water formulations have a higher activation energy of 173.4 kJ mol−1 deduced from an analysis of the data. The MBP vs. combustion temperature plot is linearized by a multiplication factor to the MBP that includes the activation energy of the corresponding system. This allows the MBP to be predicted from combustion temperatures determined from the formulations and the corresponding activation energy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePropellants Explosives PyrotechnicsSame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207