MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016121331 · doi:10.1515/jag.2010.007

Determining a free flight performance surface by mathematical optimization techniques utilizing an air speed indicator, MEMS inertial sensors and a variomete

2010· article· en· W2016121331 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Geodesy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCalibrationSimulationAerospace engineeringMicroelectromechanical systemsComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paragliding is unpowered flight in which pilots rely on their ability to navigate rising currents of air to remain airborne. Paraglider flight performance is an important measure of the capabilities of a particular design of a canopy. Most often, the performance characteristics of a canopy are measured as horizontal velocity vs. vertical velocity for steady state flight in still air. The performance curve created using this approach neglects to take into account the effect which turning has on flight. In contrast, the performance surface created from the research carried out in this paper demonstrates the effect of turning on canopy flight; such a representation of performance is novel to the authors' knowledge. To produce this surface, a flight was conducted in which a paraglider's performance was measured for various steady state velocities and turning rates; the data were then analyzed utilizing mathematical optimization after appropriate calibration corrections were applied.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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