Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Pilots need to be aware, under certain icing conditions, of the limitations of ice protection on their particular aircraft. FAA certification for flight into known icing does not ensure complete safety of flight in all icing encounters regardless of skills or aircraft capability. Too many accidents where icing was a contributing factor attest to these facts. Most of the time flight crews will not encounter an extremely severe condition. However, icing conditions are so widely variable that by chance they will encounter a condition in which they are unprepared. Many years of flight research in icing by the authors have provided the opportunity to experience and measure a wide range of icing conditions in which the performance losses and flying qualities of the aircraft were determined. These results are described in this paper.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Also, a number of accidents associated with icing have been reviewed providing insight into the catastrophic results from particular ice contamination that can form on different types of aircraft. How these situations say may be recognized and possible action taken before the aircraft becomes uncontrollable are included in this paper.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Although ice protection has not significantly improved over the years, better meteorological information is now available for both pre-flight and in-flight planning. The‘weather channel’concept can be made available in the cockpit to aid in determining enroute and destination conditions.</div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".