MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049499101 · doi:10.2514/1.25627

Analysis and Design of Robust Helium Aerostats

2007· article· en· W2049499101 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Miller, Meyer Nahon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospace engineeringEnvelope (radar)HeliumFinite element methodAeronauticsShell (structure)Marine engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tethered helium aerostats are receiving renewed attention in the scientific and surveillance communities. However, conventional aerostats cannot consistently survive high winds. The goal of this research was to design an aerostat that could be deployed for very long periods, thus reducing operating costs and interruptions in data acquisition. Existing designs and fabrication techniques were first reviewed and replicated in the construction of a 2.5-m-diam spherical aerostat. The constructed balloon was then flown outdoors to observe its operational qualities. The results from the flights were used to inform finite element models evaluating the critical stresses in the envelopes of 10.15-m-diam balloons with two different tether attachment schemes. The models suggested that conventional aerostats would fail in high winds, due to stress concentrations where the tethers meet the envelope. A third model was created to appraise the performance of an ultrarobust aerostat with a partial-hard carbon fiber shell in critical areas, which was able to achieve an operational safety factor of 1.6 in a 46.3-m/s (90-kt) wind.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicAerospace Engineering and Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207