Propellant residues deposition from firing of AT4 rockets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Military live-fire training missions utilize a variety of energetic materials that are never completely consumed during firing. In March 2009, tests were conducted at Fort Richardson, Alaska, to determine the residues related to the firing of AT4 anti-armor shoulder-fired rockets. Six rockets were fired from the same firing position on the snow-covered range. Replicate multi-increment samples were collected from the snow surface behind and downrange of the firing point in each of eight decision units. Samples were analyzed and results composited to derive an estimate of the mass of unreacted energetics. Total estimated per-round deposition rate of nitroglycerin (NG) for the M136 AT4 rocket is 95 g/round, or 73% of the original NG load. This indicates that the propellant burn efficiency for the AT4 is poor, with much propellant not consumed during firing. In subsequent May 2009 samples, we found approximately one-third of the NG had leached out of the propellant fragments since March. Large propellant strip segments collected in May contained 67% of the nominal NG of the original propellant, and we hypothesize that even more had leached from the more numerous, smaller segments. Canadian tests of the similar Carl Gustav rocket also indicate high rates (> 14%) of unburned propellants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".