MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018421332 · doi:10.4271/2011-38-0029

Decision Making Regarding Aircraft De-Icing and In-Flight Icing Using the Canadian Airport Nowcasting System (CAN-Now)

2011· article· en· W2018421332 on OpenAlexaffabout
George A. Isaac, Monika Bailey, Faisal S. Boudala, Stewart G. Cober, Robert Crawford, Norman Donaldson, Ismail Gültepe, Bjarne Hansen, Ivan Heckman, Laura X. Huang, Alister Ling, Janti Reid, Marc Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingNowcastingAeronauticsEnvironmental scienceFlight safetyMeteorologyAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Airport Nowcasting Project (CAN-Now) has developed an advanced prototype all-season weather forecasting and nowcasting system that can be used at major airports. This system uses numerical model data, pilot reports, ground in-situ sensor observations (precipitation, icing, ceiling, visibility, winds, etc), on-site remote sensing (such as vertically pointing radar and microwave radiometer) and off-site remote sensing (satellite and radar) information to provide detailed nowcasts out to approximately 6 hours. The nowcasts, or short term weather forecasts, should allow decision makers at airports such as pilots, dispatchers, de-icing crews, ground personnel or air traffic controllers to make plans with increased margins of safety and improved efficiency. The system is being developed and tested at Toronto Pearson International Airport (CYYZ) and Vancouver International Airport (CYVR). A Situation Chart has been developed to allow users to have a high glance value product which identifies significant weather related problems at the airport. Some new products combining observations and numerical model output into nowcasts are being tested. This talk will describe the uses of the system for decisions regarding aircraft de-icing at the ground and in-flight icing over the airport. Some statistical verifications of forecast products regarding precipitation amount, precipitation type, in-flight icing, etc, will be given.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207