MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7043831030

UND Engineering team scores international victory in UAS design

2014· article· en· W7043831030 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueEngineering Education and Pedagogy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVictoryPayload (computing)Competition (biology)ChampionshipNinthWorld classLaunched
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

UND Engineering team scores international victory in UAS design A team of University of North Dakota engineering students recently won a major international competition, nailing down the lead with an impressive unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that they designed and built from scratch. Eighteen teams of student engineers competed for the world championship at the 22nd annual ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) Student Design Competition finals, held in Montreal as part of at this year's International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exhibition. The UND team, comprising, Christopher Borseth, Thief River Falls, Minn.; Aric Glaser; Alex Heyd, East Grand Forks; Scott McDaniel, Darlington, Wisc.; and Daniel Smith, Grand Forks; are all juniors in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, part of the UND College of Engineering & Mines. A press report about UND's win noted that their victorious UAS weighed in at a "massive" 78.4 pounds, nearly twice as much as their nearest competitor. "This year's student competition was given the following challenge: we had to design, build and fly an original UAS, navigate the machine through high and low gate, complete a targeted payload drop (on a simulated forest fire), and return to the start through a hula hoop," Borseth said. "We figured the best option in this competition would be a quadcopter, and we built ours with eight motors, two on the end of each arm, driving counter-rotating propellers. Before the world final, we added another arm with a motor on each end, for a total of 10 motors." The main objective required to capture the title: the heaviest payload. "The group was so successful because they had a strong team that worked well together, had good ideas, and, most importantly, put in the time to continually make improvements and test their prototype," said Dustin McNally, a mechanical engineering faculty member and the team's advisor. "They also received funding from the department and college, which was critical for this competition," McNally said. "They had to design a flying vehicle, and the components can be quite expensive. It is very difficult to control and fly these designs when they are loaded with a lot of weight, and UND's team spent a lot of time maximizing their payload while still being able to complete the course and maneuver satisfactorily." "The students learned how to go through the engineering design steps to evaluate and optimize their design instead of jumping to conclusions and hoping that an idea will work," McNally said. "So they were sure to test everything completely before relying on it." Another thing the team learned in class was that even small details can take a lot of time so budgeting their time and being motivated was also very important. "This combination of having a good team, using the engineering design process to optimize their design and ensuring that it all gets done on time was critical to their success," McNally said. At the International and District level, McNally noted, there were teams that should have done better than they did because their prototypes looked competitive. "UND came through as a clear winner at each level of the competition as the team had put so much quality effort into the right areas," McNally said. Juan Miguel Pedraza University & Public Affairs writer

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,081
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,271

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0090,002
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0810,051

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,218
Écart entre enseignants0,200 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Même sujetEngineering Education and PedagogyTravaux en français237 207