MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963690397 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.077

Process for Advanced Management and Technologies of Aircraft EOL

2015· article· en· W1963690397 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispose patternScope (computer science)EngineeringProcess (computing)Work (physics)Systems engineeringManufacturing engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Waste managementBusinessComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different possibilities are available to treat aircraft end-of-life (EOL), each with positive and negative impacts on the 3 spheres of sustainable development. EOL processing includes 4 major steps: decontamination, disassembly of reused or remanufactured parts, dismantling of the remaining carcass, materials recovery and valorization and/or landfill. In this paper, we present general methods to dispose of and/or implement profitable rebirthing processes and a dedicated infrastructure for end-of-life aircraft (real Bombardier CRJ100) and helicopters operated in Canada. This work is critical to help aircraft manufacturers design current and next generation aircraft and to facilitate disposal after use. The scope of this project is well rounded and includes all aspects related to dismantling of an aircraft; from legal, to scientific and engineering. These aspects are studied using both modeling and experimental approaches.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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