MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529540081 · doi:10.1002/prep.201600119

Perchlorate Residues Emitted during the Use and Demilitarization of Simulators

2016· article· en· W2529540081 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Brochu, Marc‐Olivier Turcotte‐Savard

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Analysis and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerchlorateDispersion (optics)ChemistryEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental sciencePhysicsOrganic chemistryIonOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study assessed the dispersion of perchlorate and dioxins and furans (PCDD/PCDF) residues following the use or demilitarization by blow‐in‐place of the Groundburst Simulator (GB) C1A1 and the Thunderflash (TF) C1A1 commonly used in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The amount of unburned perchlorate residues per pyrotechnic device reached 0.8 and 43 mg for the regular use of TF and the GB, respectively. Their demilitarization by blow‐in‐place operations led to higher dispersion of unburned perchlorate residues, up to 6 and 2300 mg per TF and GB, respectively. Very high deposition rates were obtained for water‐soaked items: up to 460 mg per TF and up to 6600 mg for the GB. Dioxins and furans reached a maximum of 1 pg of Toxic Equivalent (TEQ) for the regular use, and 9 pg TEQ for the BIP operations. Based on these results, it is recommended to find alternate ways to demilitarize malfunctioning and weathered items found in military ranges and training areas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePropellants Explosives PyrotechnicsSame topicChemical Analysis and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207