MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596919109 · doi:10.4271/2003-01-2127

Update On SLD Engineering Tools Development

2003· article· en· W1596919109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dean Miller, Mark Potapczuk, Thomas H. Bond

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice National d'études et de Recherches AérospatialesNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAirworthinessIcingPlan (archaeology)Systems engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringAeronauticsRisk analysis (engineering)Operations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airworthiness authorities (FAA, JAA, Transport Canada) will be releasing a draft rule in the 2006 timeframe concerning the operation of aircraft in a Supercooled Large Droplet (SLD) environment aloft. The draft rule will require aircraft manufacturers to demonstrate that their aircraft can operate safely in an SLD environment for a period of time to facilitate a safe exit from the condition. It is anticipated that aircraft manufacturers will require a capability to demonstrate compliance with this rule via experimental means (icing tunnels or tankers) and by analytical means (ice prediction codes). Since existing icing research facilities and analytical codes were not developed to account for SLD conditions, current engineering tools are not adequate to support compliance activities in SLD conditions. Therefore, existing capabilities need to be augmented to include SLD conditions. In response to this need, NASA and its partners conceived a strategy or Roadmap for developing experimental & analytical SLD simulation tools. Following review and refinement by the airworthiness authorities and other international research partners, this technical strategy has been crystallized into a project plan to guide the SLD Engineering Tool Development effort. This paper will provide a brief overview of the latest version of the project plan and technical rationale, and provide a status of selected SLD Engineering Tool Development research tasks which are currently underway.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.068

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207