MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965732445 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v8n3p23

Lump System Analysis Modelling for Enhanced Ballistic Performance of Clay Box Doped with Different Types of Additives

2019· article· en· W2965732445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Popoola Abduljelili, Gbadebo I. Olatona, Muhammed T. Abdullahi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNatural rubberThermal conductivityComposite materialArmour

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The temperature of clay box used in the ballistic testing of body amour drops sharply upon removal from the oven. This implies that the clay has to be reinserted into the oven for another heating, which slows down the ballistic testing procedure. This paper attempts to solve the problem by studying the effect of addition of different percentages of rubber cuttings, saw dust and berley reeds additives on the cooling rate of clay used in clay box construction. The cooling rate is a measure of the ballistic performance of the clay box. The properties of the clay box such as the density, thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity are factored into the lump system analysis model. Minimum cooling rate of about 2.04×10-03 and 1.89×10-03oC/s were obtained when 0% and 10% rubber cuttings were used as dopands respectively. Rubber cuttings also proved to be the best additives that can be used to enhance the ballistic performance of clay box used in the ballistic testing of body armour.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207