ARP4754A/ ED-79A - Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems - Enhancements, Novelties and Key Topics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">ARP4754A/ED-79A guidelines addresse the development cycle for aircraft and systems that implement aircraft functions. The current trend in system design is an increasing level of integration between aircraft functions and the systems that implement them. While there can be considerable value gained when integrating systems with other systems, the increased complexity yields increased possibilities for errors, particularly with functions that are performed jointly across multiple systems. Following the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) recommendations to respond to this increased integration which referenced ARP4754/ED-79 in advisory materials for compliance to 14CFR/CS 25.1309 (see AMC 25.1309, published in 2002 and AC25.1309-Arsenal draft) the use of ARP4754A/ED79A in aircraft certification has become increasingly widespread.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">This presentation constitutes a comparison between the documents SAE [<span class="xref">1</span>] / EUROCAE [<span class="xref">2</span>] and SAE [<span class="xref">3</span>] / EUROCAE [<span class="xref">4</span>]; it highlights ARP4754A/ED79A enhancements, novelties and key topics (e.g. Development Assurance Level Assignment FDAL &amp; IDAL).</div></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it