MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123298553 · doi:10.1002/prep.202000180

Linear Burning Rate and Erosivity Properties of Nitrocellulose Propellant Formulations Plasticized by Glycidyl Azide Polymer and Nitroglycerine

2021· article· en· W3123298553 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 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantNitrocelluloseMaterials sciencePolymerComposite materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The performance of the extruded cord geometry of nitrocellulose (NC) propellants plasticized by glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) and nitroglycerine (NG) has been evaluated using both closed and erosion vented vessel techniques in order to obtain the linear burning rate and the relative erosivity of these propellants. The closed vessel experiments performed at −46, 21 and 63 °C demonstrate that the measured maximum pressure is in accordance with the calculation obtained using the CHEETAH V2 thermochemical code. From the closed vessel analysis, the linear burning rates show that it is on average 89±3 % that of the 21 °C propellant when fired at −46 °C. and 112±4 % when fired at 63 °C. The addition of either GAP or NG increases the linear burning rate when compared to the neat NC formulation. Relative erosion data obtained in the erosion vented vessel are in agreement with the Arisawa‐Kimura models and it is found that the ratio of CO/CO 2 concentration in combustion gases is a better erosivity indicator than N 2 /CO ratio.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 head0.182
Teacher spread0.171 · 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