MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317445759 · doi:10.2514/6.2008-5847

Aerostructural Optimization of Aircraft Structures Using Asymmetric Subspace Optimization

2008· article· en· W2317445759 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

Venue12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspace topologyComputer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel approach to the aerostructural optimization of wing-box structures called asymmetric subspace optimization, is presented and compared to the traditional multidisciplinary feasible (MDF) approach. In the asymmetric subspace optimization approach, the analyst chooses local and global sets of design variables and constraints. The local constraints and variables form a local optimization problem that is solved at each global iteration. This requirement changes the sensitivities of the global objective and constraints and requires a post-optimality sensitivity method. The main idea of this approach is to change the path to the optimal solution, by requiring the solution satisfy certain constraints at every global iteration without modifying the solution itself. The aerostructural problem examined here involves a linear stress analysis while the aerodynamic analysis is performed using a vortex lattice method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.242 · 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