MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316665742 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1699

A Robust ASE Correlation and Analysis Method

2013· article· en· W2316665742 on OpenAlexaff
W Anderson, John P. Babish, Charles J. R. Hedgecock, David Layton

Bibliographic record

Venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrelationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A robust method for Structural Coupling Test (SCT) correlation and subsequent Aeroservoelastic (ASE) analysis is presented. The method provides a means with a limited set of SCT test conditions to develop a correlation model that can be applied to the analysis of many other configuration/condition variations such as fuel states, flight conditions, internal store and external store carriage, and for modernization. The method makes use of a set of normal modes and other generalized coordinates; all used as ‘primitive’ modes during both correlation and analysis. This uses a set of correlation variables or coefficients whose values are established during the correlation process and then used throughout all the subsequent analysis. Several correlation solution techniques are discussed but the application presented uses an optimization process. As is evidenced by the data presented, the method resulted in very good correlation. The method also resulted in a significant reduction in correlation and post-correlation analysis times. The development of this method was driven by a SCT being conducted on a high-serial-number F-22 to determine the effect of changes that had occurred in the aircraft since EMD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials ConferenceSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207