MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186048982 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-3518

Evaluation of Lattice-Augmented Hybrid Rocket Fuels on a Slab Burner

2021· article· en· W3186048982 on OpenAlex
Colin Hill, Craig T. Johansen

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

VenueAIAA Propulsion and Energy 2021 Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustorWaxMaterials scienceSlabAcrylonitrile butadiene styreneLattice (music)CombustionEmbeddingParaffin waxComposite materialNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringProcess engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringChemistryPhysicsAcousticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3518.vid The poor mechanical properties associated with wax-based hybrid rocket fuels is a persistent challenge for propulsion designs utilizing this type of fuel. A novel method of improving the mechanical properties of the fuel by embedding a structural lattice within the body of the wax has begun to receive interest in the literature. The current work examines the change in fuel regression rate resulting from lattice-augmentation. Data collected on an optically accessible slab burner has been compared to a preliminary analytical model developed to predict the regression rate of paraffin-based fuels augmented with lattices. Further work is required to match the experimental results observed for the polylactide (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) lattices tested.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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