MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067688910 · doi:10.1109/rose.2010.5675306

Estimation of alerting thresholds for Sense-and-Avoid

2010· article· en· W2067688910 on OpenAlexaff
Dilan Amarasinghe, Siu O’Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Collision avoidanceComputer sciencePoint (geometry)CollisionBaseline (sea)Sense (electronics)Real-time computingAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsProgramming languageAerospace engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a method to calculate alerting thresholds is outlined along with the assumptions and an example. First, the definitions and recommendations of the FAA sponsored Sense-and-Avoid (SAA) workshop report has been adapted to a formal mathematical definition. These definitions are then realized using assumptions and other logic and are translated into a more concrete SAA scenarios. Alerting threshold is first calculated as a range-based specification and then translated into a time-based specification using time to closest point of approach (CPA). It is shown that both, range and time based thresholds can serve important roles in the development of a SAA systems as well as development of the minimum performance standards for SAA. The range-based threshold can be used to define the baseline sensor specification and the time-based threshold can be used as the minimum CPA for collision avoidance. An example of calculating collision avoidance threshold (CAT) for level-turn maneuvers of the unmanned aircraft (UA) is presented along with the results.

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)0.011
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207