MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289501510 · doi:10.1109/tcst.2015.2461593

Lorentz-Augmented Spacecraft Formation Reconfiguration

2015· article· en· W2289501510 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationControl theory (sociology)SpacecraftLinear-quadratic regulatorThrustLorentz forceLorentz transformationAerospace engineeringComputer scienceOptimal controlEngineeringControl engineeringPhysicsControl (management)MathematicsClassical mechanicsMagnetic fieldMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the geomagnetic Lorentz force as a means of actuation is considered in this paper for the purpose of spacecraft formation reconfiguration. A continuous/impulsive linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is proposed for the purpose of designing an optimal control strategy that combines continuous Lorentz force actuation with impulsive thrusting. New theory is presented for the determination of optimal impulsive thrust application time. A simulation of a spacecraft formation reconfiguration maneuver demonstrates the effectiveness of the continuous/impulsive LQR.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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