Accuracy of impact angle determinations from bullet holes in drywall panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a bullet strikes a surface such as a drywall panel, it may perforate the material leaving a hole in the surface or it may ricochet. When multiple bullet impacts exist, for example through a wall section, the probing method allows for the trajectory of a projectile to be reconstructed. Past studies have shown that low angle impacts are subject to error when applying the probing method. Hence, this study used the probing method to examine bullet impacts in wall sections made of drywall to determine the accuracy of the angle of incidence with respect to a known firing position. To control the angle of incidence, drywall panels were positioned at different angles beginning at 90° and decreasing until the panels were at 10°. The measured angle of incidence was compared to the known angle of incidence to determine the accuracy/error. The study observed how .40 S&W caliber ammunition from four different manufacturers, interacted with drywall panels. For each ammunition type and known angle there were three replicates, for a total of 84 impacts (n = 84). It was observed that as the angle of incidence decreased, the error of the measured value increased. Measurements from panel positions at higher angles (between 60°–90°) were more accurate and precise than measurements from panels positioned at lower angles of incidence (10°–45°). The data collected in this study provides insight into the probing method and how the accuracy of measurements can be impacted while the angle of incidence decreases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".