MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063449307 · doi:10.1115/fedsm-icnmm2010-30041

Application of Bayesian Inference to the Flutter Margin Method: New Developments

2010· article· en· W2063449307 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterProbability density functionMarkov chain Monte CarloMonte Carlo methodControl theory (sociology)Margin (machine learning)MathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringStatisticsAerodynamicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zimmerman and Weissenburger flutter margin method is extended to account for modal parameter uncertainties by applying a Bayesian estimation technique to obtain the probability distribution function of the flutter speed. In previous work, a least-squares estimation technique was applied to obtain the posterior pdf of the flutter speed. The limitation of this technique is the assumption that the flutter margin at each airspeed is strictly Gaussian. In this paper, the joint distribution of the modal parameters (and consequently the flutter margin) is obtained from preflutter measured system responses using a full Bayesian analysis utilizing Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling technique. The flutter margin pdfs are then utilized to obtain the posterior probability density function of the flutter speed. Results are presented for a two-degrees-of-freedom numerical model, for which the true flutter speed is known.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.319 · 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