MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130793837 · doi:10.3390/math9040398

Modeling, Simulation and Uncertain Optimization of the Gun Engraving System

2021· article· en· W3130793837 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

VenueMathematics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Launch and Propulsion Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngravingPropellantProjectileLight-gas gunInternal ballisticsSensitivity (control systems)SimulationEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The system designed to accomplish the engraving process of a rotating band projectile is called the gun engraving system. To obtain higher performance, the optimal design of the size parameters of the gun engraving system was carried out. First, a fluid–solid coupling computational model of the gun engraving system was built and validated by the gun launch experiment. Subsequently, three mathematic variable values, like performance evaluation indexes, were obtained. Second, a sensitivity analysis was performed, and four high-influence size parameters were selected as design variables. Finally, an optimization model based on the affine arithmetic was set up and solved, and then the optimized intervals of performance evaluation indexes were obtained. After the optimal design, the percent decrease of the maximum engraving resistance force ranged from 6.34% to 18.24%; the percent decrease of the maximum propellant gas temperature ranged from 1.91% to 7.45%; the percent increase of minimum pressure wave of the propellant gas ranged from 0.12% to 0.36%.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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