MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Optimization of GAP-based Ducted Rocket Fuels from Gas Generator Exhaust Characterization

2001· article· en· W4240345318 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsBombardier Recreational Products (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGas generatorExhaust gasExhaust gas recirculationCarbon monoxideRocket (weapon)Environmental scienceCarbon fibersSootMaterials scienceHydrogenCombustionAerospace engineeringWaste managementChemistryEngineeringComposite materialComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of a ducted rocket motor depends greatly on the composition of the exhaust products from its solid fuel gas generator. A series of experiments has been conducted to characterize the exhaust of GAP/carbon gas generator fuels as a function of pressure and grain formulation. Fuel samples were ignited in a closed vessel and gases collected for further analysis using gas chromatography. The major gaseous components identified in the exhaust stream were nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon monoxide while the condensed phase was found to be a carbon-rich soot. The relative amounts of each major component depended greatly on the chamber pressure and the precise formulation used, thus providing a simple means of optimizing the exhaust composition to maximize the performance of the ducted rocket propulsion systems.

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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.197 · 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