A statistical method for the evaluation of projectile dispersion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a research program, an extensive study on the dispersion characteristics of eight different 7.62 × 51 mm ammunition types was conducted. The paper presents the main steps in the experimental and analytical process carried out to evaluate, namely to measure and compare, the dispersion characteristics of the ammunitions; namely, (1) identify the number of rounds to fire in the trials, (2) establish a test plan and the setup for the precision trials, (3) fire the rounds, following an established protocol for the experiments, (4) collect the impact points, and measure the performance through statistical measures, (5) perform a statistical analysis of dispersion applied to the results obtained in the trials, and (6) conclude on the ammunition characteristics. In particular, the paper proposes a statistical method to evaluate the precision of ammunitions fired with precision (Mann) barrels. The practical method relies on comparison of confidence intervals and hypothesis testing on the standard deviation of samples, namely the impact points. An algorithm is proposed to compare the variances of two or more populations of ammunitions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it