Fuel burn and emissions evaluation for a missed approach procedure performed by a B737-400
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the results of a study conducted at the Laboratoire de recherche en commande active, avionique et aéroservoélasticité, École de technologie supérieure, regarding the costs in fuel burn and pollutant emissions corresponding to a flight profile determined by a missed approach procedure. The evaluated missed approach flight profile starts at the point where the missed approach decision is made and ends at the same point, after the aircraft completes the missed approach procedure. This study uses the fuel burn and pollutant emissions data for a Boeing 737-400 aircraft (chosen at random for this study), published by the European Environment Agency, and the standard flying cycle model elaborated by Group 08 of the Task Force on Emissions Inventories and Projections – a task force created by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE)/the co-operative program for the monitoring and evaluation of the long-range transmission of air pollutants in the Europe (EMEP). The missed approach fight profile is based on the Area Navigation/Required Navigation Performance procedure for runway 13R of the King County International Airport/Boeing Field (BFI) in Seattle. Four study cases are considered for the missed approach flight evaluation. These cases correspond to four navigation profiles – a combination of two lateral navigation profiles, one with a 20 nautical miles holding pattern and the other without, and two vertical navigation profiles. The results obtained for the missed approach flight profiles, in terms of fuel burn and emissions, are compared with the fuel burn and emissions reference data corresponding to a standard approach procedure and complete flights (from taxi out to taxi in).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it