Results of close-in effects of enhanced blast weapons, numerical simulation of blast and response of field structures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Netherlands research program on `Protection of field structures against the effects of enhanced blast weapons (EBWs)' is strongly related to the Canadian Technology Program on 'Force protection against enhanced biast'. The Netherlands program is divided into four research topics (i) Threat/scenario analysis of EBW (ii) Measurement techniques (iii) Development of prediction models: explosion effects, blast propagation and response of field structures, ammo- and POL-storage (iv) Development of a consequence/risk-analysis tool.This paper presents the development of prediction models for EBW blast and discusses the vulnerability of protective field structures against EBWs threat. Particular in harsh explosion environments the pressure measurements in the fire balt of a thermobaric (TBX) or a fuel air explosion (FAE) are a real challenge. These signals are necessary to develop and validate blast prediction models of EBW explosion effects. Numerical study of the physical effects has led to the implementation of TBX and FAE models into TNO's Blast3D code. The simulation results of the blast propagation show good correspondence to the measured pressures during the Elk Velvet trials at DRDC Suffield, Canada.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it