MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889005737 · doi:10.1002/prep.201700272

Erosivity and Performance of Nitrogen‐Rich Propellants

2018· article· en· W2889005737 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantNitrogenErosionMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeComposite materialChemistryGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Five propellant formulations were test fired both in a vented vessel and a closed vessel. Two formulations contained 35 % weight of nitrogen‐rich materials. The erosion by weight of the propellants ranged from 0.53 g to 1.31 g after two consecutive test firings of a given propellant. The addition of nitrogen‐rich materials resulted in reduced erosion. Scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy revealed nitrogen in the erosion pieces for one of the reference propellants (SB) and the two nitrogen‐rich propellants. The two hottest propellants cause melting of the erosion pieces. The presence of nitrogen‐rich materials has a tremendous impact on the burning rates with the burning rate increase at 100 MPa reaching up to 2.4 times that of the formulation used as the base for the nitrogen‐rich propellants.

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 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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