MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W272933778 · doi:10.21236/ada413863

Vented Fixture Modeling

2003· report· en· W272933778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul J. Conroy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixtureComputer scienceEngineering drawingEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vented fixtures have been used extensively for erosion/erosivity investigation for many years. The fixtures can assist in quickly assessing materials/propellants and interactions as well as understanding mechanisms of erosion. In this report, two fixtures are modeled a 37-mm fixture at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and a 2OO-mm bomb with a l-mm vent hole, located in Canada. Both fixtures erode a nozzle-type insert. The 37-mm fixture is designed to maintain a steady erosion quantity over repeated firings, with relatively small throat cross- sectional area change, which enables some insight into possible mechanisms. Each interior ballistic model required modifications to the interior ballistic code to enable a variable throat exit for the orifice. The Canadian fixture has a 1 -mm vent hole, which has a tendency to enlarge considerably during firing. The dominant erosion mechanism for the Canadian fixture is shown to be melt wipe, while for the 37-mm fixture, it is primarily thermochemical. A redesign of the Canadian fixture to permit a larger exit orifice with a rupture diaphragm would enable thermochemical differences in the propellants to reveal themselves better.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207