MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134995461 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000001494

Longitudinal flight control design with handling quality requirements

2006· article· en· W2134995461 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

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieurePolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlight envelopeEnvelope (radar)Quality (philosophy)Control (management)ModalStability (learning theory)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)EngineeringWork (physics)Control engineeringControl theory (sociology)AerodynamicsMechanical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work presents a method for selecting the gain parameters of a C * control law for an aircraft’s longitudinal motion. The design incorporates various handling quality requirements involving modal, time- and frequency-domain criteria that were fixed by the aircraft manufacturer. After necessary model order-reductions, the design proceeds in essentially two-steps: stability augmentation system (SAS) loop design and control augmentation system (CAS) loop design. The approach partly relies on the use of guardian maps to characterise, in each case, the set of gain parameters for which desired handling quality requirements are satisfied. The approach is applied throughout the full flight envelope of a business jet aircraft and yields satisfactory 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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.217 · 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