MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023354229 · doi:10.2514/6.2010-7799

Identification and validation of a F/A-18 model Using Neural Networks

2010· article· en· W2023354229 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsArtificial neural networkIdentification (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new approach to identify and valid ate the F/A-18 aeroservoelastic model based on flight flutter tests is presented. The Neu ral Network, trained with five different flight flutter cases, is validated using eleven oth er flight flutter test data. The total of sixteen flight flutter tests cases were obtained fo r all three flight regimes (subsonic, transonic and supersonic) at Mach numbers between 0.85 and 1.30 and altitudes between 5,000 feet and 25,000 feet. The obtained r esults highlight the efficiency of the multi-layer perceptron Neural Network in model identification. The Neural Network optimization is required mixing hidden layer size r eduction and four-layered Neural Network performances. This article shows that a four-layered Neural Network with only 16 neurons is sufficient to create an accurate mode l. The fit coefficients are higher than 92%, either for the identification test data or the validation ones, and thus the Neural Network accuracy was demonstrated.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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