MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1640108901 · doi:10.1002/9780470061626.shm191

Environmental Monitoring of Aircraft

2008· other· en· W1640108901 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas C. Bellinger, Marcias Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionComponent (thermodynamics)Degradation (telecommunications)ResidualEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringComputer scienceStructural integrityAircraft maintenanceForensic engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceAerospace engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Current aircraft life prediction methodologies do not take into account the effect that environmental degradation has on the structural integrity of a component. This has led to the setting of limits on the amount of damage, usually based on maintaining residual strength that can be present on a component. These arbitrary limits have caused a significant increase in the maintenance cost of aircraft, since components must undergo a repair procedure when the detected damage is above the preset limits. To better assess the state of an aircraft, sensors can be placed in areas known to be susceptible to environmental degradation, such as corrosion. These sensors can monitor the environment in the area of concern to determine if conditions are present to cause corrosion. Sensors can also be used to directly determine if corrosion damage is present on a particular component and to what level. However, procedures need to be developed to relate the parameters that are monitored by a particular sensor type to the life of the component. This may include the development of algorithms to relate the environmental parameters that favor the growth of corrosion to the corrosion damage present on the particular component.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Structural Health MonitoringSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207