Developing Data Mining-Based Prognostic Models for CF-18 Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CF-18 aircraft is a complex system for which a variety of data are systematically being recorded: operational flight data from sensors and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) and maintenance activities recorded by personnel. These data resources are stored and used within the operating organization but new analytical and statistical techniques and tools are being developed that could be applied to these data to benefit the organization. This paper investigates the utility of readily available CF-18 data to develop data mining-based models for prognostics and health management (PHM) systems. We introduce a generic data mining methodology developed to build prognostic models from operational and maintenance data and elaborate on challenges specific to the use of CF-18 data from the Canadian Forces. We focus on a number of key data mining tasks including: data gathering, information fusion, data pre-processing, model building, and evaluation. The solutions developed to address these tasks are described. A software tool developed to automate the model development process is also presented. Finally, the paper discusses preliminary results on the creation of models to predict F404 No. 4 Bearing and MFC (Main Fuel Control) failures on the CF-18.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".