MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134891371 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000700418

Identification of a MIMO state space model of an F/A-18 aircraft using a subspace method

2009· article· en· W2134891371 on OpenAlexafffund
S. De Jesus-Mota, M. Nadeau Beaulieu, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAileronAeroelasticityControl theory (sociology)RudderFlutterSubspace topologyNonlinear systemTrailing edgeMIMOMathematicsState-space representationStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringAlgorithmMathematical analysisAerospace engineeringWingAerodynamicsPhysicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this paper is to determine the mathematical relationship (model) between control deflections and structural deflections of the F/A-18 modified aircraft in the active aeroelastic wing technology program. Five sets of signals from flight flutter tests corresponding to the excited sources were measured by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. These excitation inputs are: differential ailerons, collective ailerons, collective stabilisers, differential stabilisers, and rudders. The signals to be used by the model are of two types: control deflection time histories and corresponding structural deflections on the wing and trailing-edge flaps. We choose to use the subspace identification method based on reconstructing the observability matrix in order to identify the nonlinear multi-input, linear-in-the-states, multi-output system. We identify models (input/output characteristics) by applying this method for a number of sixteen flight conditions for which the Mach number varies from 0·85 to 1·30 and the altitudes vary from 5,000ft to 25,000ft. Very good results are obtained with a fit between the estimated and the measured signals and a correlation coefficient higher than 90%.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207