MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989204276 · doi:10.2514/6.2014-3684

Propulsion System Dynamic Modeling of the NASA Supersonic Concept Vehicle for AeroPropulsoServoElasticity

2014· article· en· W1989204276 on OpenAlexaff
George Kopasakis, Joseph W. Connolly, Jonathan A. Seidel, David M. Christhilf

Bibliographic record

Venue50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPropulsionAerodynamicsAerospace engineeringSupersonic speedAeronauticsSystems engineeringComputer scienceTask (project management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A summary of the propulsion system modeling under NASA's High Speed Project (HSP) AeroPropulsoServoElasticity (APSE) task is provided with a focus on the propulsion system for the low-boom supersonic configuration developed by Lockheed Martin and referred to as the N+2 configuration. This summary includes details on the effort to date to develop computational models for the various propulsion system components. The objective of this paper is to summarize the model development effort in this task, while providing more detail in the modeling areas that have not been previously published. The purpose of the propulsion system modeling and the overall APSE effort is to develop an integrated dynamic vehicle model to conduct appropriate unsteady analysis of supersonic vehicle performance. This integrated APSE system model concept includes the propulsion system model, and the vehicle structural-aerodynamics model. The development to date of such a preliminary integrated model will also be summarized in this report.propulsion system dynamics, the structural dynamics, and aerodynamics.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion ConferenceSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207