MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015022389 · doi:10.82308/45318

Development of a single-stage implosion-driven hypervelocity launcher

2008· article· en· W3015022389 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Szirti

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyMcGill University
KeywordsImplosionHypervelocityProjectileThermonuclear fusionLight-gas gunExplosive materialMechanicsPhysicsTube (container)Shock tubeHeliumPinchMuzzleMaterials scienceOpticsNuclear engineeringShock wavePlasmaNuclear physicsAtomic physicsComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study deals with the development of a single-stage implosion-driven hypervelocity launcher. A thin-walled tube filled with helium surrounded by explosives acts as a driver for the launcher. Implosion of the tube drives a strong shock that reflects back and forth between the projectile and the implosion pinch, generating very high temperatures and pressures. Simple analytic models were used to approximate the performance of the pump tube and its use as a driver for a launcher. Experiments to evaluate the implosion dynamics and performance of the pump tube were carried out, and implosion-driven launcher experiments demonstrated muzzle velocities above 4 km/s with 5-mm-diameter aluminum projectiles. Projectile integrity was verified by high-speed photography. Disagreement of experimental data with the analytical models of performance is mostly due to failure to seal the chamber of the launcher, resulting in loss of driver gas, and pump tube expansion, which weakens the precursor shock.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207