MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801467218 · doi:10.1002/slct.201800199

Hydrazide Salts of Di‐Picric Acid as Dense and Insensitive Energetic Materials

2018· article· en· W2801467218 on OpenAlexaff
Alka Devi, Srinivas Dharavath, Vikas D. Ghule

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistrySelect · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsCarbohydrazideThermogravimetric analysisMonoclinic crystal systemPicric acidHydrazideThermal stabilityChemistryDetonationStoichiometryDifferential thermal analysisPowder diffractionElemental analysisOxygen balanceEnergetic materialInfrared spectroscopyNuclear chemistryInorganic chemistryDiffractionCrystal structureCrystallographyPhysical chemistryOxygenMedicinal chemistryExplosive materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Energetic dipicrate hydrazide salts were synthesized by combining picric acid (PA) as anion and carbohydrazide and oxalyldihydrazide as cations in stoichiometric amounts (2 : 1 mol ratio). The structures of 2,2′‐carbonyldi(hydrazin‐1‐ium) bispicrate ( 1 ) and 2,2′‐(1,2‐dioxoethane‐1,2‐diyl)di(hydrazin‐1‐ium) bispicrate ( 2 ) were investigated by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction analysis, illustrate that both crystals of 1 and 2 belong to the monoclinic system (space group, C2/c). The prepared salts were thoroughly characterized using NMR, IR spectroscopy, elemental analysis, and thermogravimetric‐differential thermal analysis (TG‐DTA). The detonation velocities and pressures of salts 1 (8.02 km/s, 27.8 GPa) and 2 (8.23 km/s, 30.5 GPa) were computed by using EXPLO5 code. They exhibit high density, acceptable oxygen balance, good detonation properties and admirable thermal stability.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistrySelectSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207