Determination of a Measure of Sensitivity to Shock Detonate an Explosive as a Function of its Shock Parameters
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
Abstract The sensitivity of an explosive to detonate due to a shock stimulus is examined using the shock Hugoniots of the condensed material and the detonation products. Explicit equations were developed for the initiation and detonation pressures as a function of the shock parameters, the density, the detonation velocity and the Chapman‐Jouguet pressure which in itself is a function of the heat of detonation. We came upon defining a pressure difference, , between the initiation and detonation pressures which appears to provide a measure of the sensitivity of the explosive to detonate due to a shock loading. For a number of explosives for which reliable shock parameters were available, our results compared very well with widely used and tested small and large scale gap test results. We demonstrated that no one parameter such as the heat of detonation, the Chapman‐Jouguet pressure or even the detonation velocity could be used as a measure of sensitivity to shock detonation but it is the net effect captured by all the parameters that provides the sensitivity of the explosive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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