MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607217018 · doi:10.1063/1.3295034

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOCK INITIATION IN MIXTURES OF MANGANESE AND SULFUR

2009· article· en· W2607217018 on OpenAlexaff
F. X. Jetté, Samuel Goroshin, Andrew Higgins, Mark Elert, Michael D. Furnish, William W. Anderson, William G. Proud, William T. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManganeseMaterials scienceSulfurExplosive materialExothermic reactionNitromethaneShock (circulatory)DetonationChemical engineeringChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equimolar mixtures of manganese powder and sulfur at different starting densities were tested in two different types of steel recovery capsules in order to study the shock initiation phenomenon in Self‐Propagating High‐Temperature Synthesis (SHS) mixtures. Two different sizes of Mn particles were used for these experiments, <10 μm and −325 mesh (<44 μm). This mixture was selected due to the large exothermic heat release of the manganese‐sulfur reaction (214 kJ/mol), which causes the reaction to be self‐sustaining once initiated. The test samples were placed in planar recovery capsules and a strong shock was delivered via the detonation of a charge of amine‐sensitized nitromethane. Various shock strengths were achieved by placing different thicknesses of PMMA attenuator discs between the explosive charge and the capsule. The results confirmed that shock‐induced reactions can be produced in highly non‐porous mixtures. It was also found that shock interactions with the side walls of the recovery capsule can play a significant role in the initiation.

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 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207