MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320987582 · doi:10.2514/6.2016-1185

Modeling of Inertial Control Surface Hinge Moments Using Quaternion Calculations

2016· article· en· W2320987582 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

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuaternionHingeSurface (topology)Method of moments (probability theory)Inertial frame of referenceComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsStructural engineeringGeometryClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A general method is presented for modeling inertial hinge moments on aircraft control surfaces that result from maneuver loads on the aircraft. Inertial hinge moments are used to accurately model the loads experienced by actuators or control linkages in dynamic flight conditions. The calculations use quaternion rotations and properties of vector arithmetic applied to hinge vectors to simplify the transformations between coordinate systems. The intent of the paper is to allow the reader to apply this method to any aircraft configuration as part of an aircraft simulation. Sample calculations are included for a simple aircraft configuration.

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 score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.213 · 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