MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971466919 · doi:10.1017/s0890060401154041

Extracting information from free-text aircraft repair notes

2001· article· en· W1971466919 on OpenAlexaff
Benoit Farley

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTechnicianCrewProcess (computing)Domain (mathematical analysis)Information extractionNatural languageExpression (computer science)Action (physics)Information retrievalParsingNatural language processingLexical analysisArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For every problem mentioned by crew members in an aircraft log book, an associated repair action note is entered in the same log book by a maintenance technician after the problem has been handled. These hand-written repair notes, subsequently transcribed into a database, give an account of the actions undertaken by the technicians to fix the problems. Written in a free-text format with peculiar linguistic characteristics, including many arbitrary abbreviations and missing auxiliaries, they contain valuable information that can be used for decision support methods such as case-based reasoning. We use natural language techniques in our information extraction system to analyze the structure and contents of these notes in order to determine the pieces of equipment involved in a repair and what was done to them. Lexical information and domain knowledge are extracted from an electronic version of the illustrated parts catalog for the particular airplane, and are used at different stages of the process, from the morpholexical analysis to the evaluation of the semantic expression generated by the syntactical analyzer.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturingSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207