MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W310088135

Gun Propellant Residues Dispersed from Static Artillery Firings of LG1 Mark 2 and C3 105-mm Howitzers

2008· article· en· W310088135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuela Diaz, Denis Gilbert, Dominic Faucher, André Marois, Annie Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantArtilleryEnvironmental sciencePopulationBiomass (ecology)Waste managementAeronauticsEngineeringForensic engineeringArchaeologyAerospace engineeringGeographyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : Military training on fields and ranges at Canadian Forces Bases (CFB) is essential to prepare our troops for potential wars and/or peace missions. On the other hand, the growing concern of DND leaders and of the general population makes it necessary to evaluate the impacts of training on the environment. During the last 10 years, new methods of characterization have been developed to assess the energetic materials contamination, which is different from the usual contamination in residential or industrial scenarios. Recently, the efforts were focused on firing positions. Soil and biomass sampled at firing positions have shown detectable levels of gun propellant residues, such as 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT) and nitroglycerine (NG). In this study, aluminium witness plates were placed in front of the muzzle of the gun to collect residues propelled in the environment. Cotton wipes were used to collect the residues on plates. Moreover, as complementary data, soil samples were taken before and after the military exercise using a composite approach to be statistically representative. The energetic materials were analyzed at DRDC Valcartier in Quebec City by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and metal analyses were performed at Bodycote Testing Group in Montreal only for soil samples. This work was realized in May 2005 and was supported by the Sustain Thrust of DRDC and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Washington D.C., USA..

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207