MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172300304 · doi:10.2514/1.26625

Ground Dynamics Model Validation by Use of Landing Flight Test

2007· article· en· W2172300304 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

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTouchdownStiffnessLanding gearCenter of gravityFlight testMoment (physics)Aerospace engineeringMechanicsEngineeringControl theory (sociology)PhysicsStructural engineeringComputer scienceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Abstract] In this paper, a new formulation for a ground dynamics model of a commercial two-engine helicopter is validated after touchdown. The inputs of the ground dynamics model are the velocities and angles at touchdown, and its outputs are the forces and moments produced by the ground on the helicopter. Expressions for forces and moments, which depend on the ground contact force, the friction coefficient between the skids and the ground, and the system stiffness and damping are determined. . The system stiffness and damping are defined between the touchdown point and the center of gravity in each of the helicopter’s degree of freedom. Expressions for the stiffness, damping and friction coefficients are validated for two kinds of landing situations: one-engine inoperative and autorotation. The ground dynamics of the Bell-427 helicopter model are then used to build and certify a level-D flight simulator.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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