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 OpenAlexaff
Colin Hill, Craig T. Johansen

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.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
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

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Propulsion and Energy 2021 ForumSame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207