Pressure measurement of circumferentially confined gelatin under shock wave
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To investigate the pressure response characteristics of head physical surrogate under different sensor arrangement methods, the experimental study on the pressure measurement inside circumferent confined gelatin under the shock waves was conducted. A setup of one-dimensional pressure wave flatbed was constructed, consisting a pneumatic launcher, PVC pipe, and water. The pressure wave of three sensor arrangement methods were compared. The result shows that the three sensor arrangement methods have minimal influence on pressure testing results inside circumferentially constrained gelatin. When the sensitive surface flush with the inner wall (A1) is chosen as a baseline, the peak pressure and impulse differ by less than 3.44% and 5.14% in sensor arrangement method with sensitive surface flush with the pipe center (A2), and by less than 6.75% and 5.83% in sensor arrangement method with sensitive surface into a conical platform flush with the center of the pipe (A3). Smooth and reliable one-dimensional pressure waves can be obtained by the pressure testing method. The one-dimensional pressure wave obtained using this method can effectively be used to study the damage mechanisms of shock waves on the brain and air-containing organs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".