MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327364631 · doi:10.2514/6.2016-1435

Non-intrusive Flight Test Instrumentation using Video Recognition

2016· article· en· W2327364631 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joseph Ricciardi, Cyrus Minwalla

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)Computer scienceTest (biology)Flight testAeronauticsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSimulationOperating systemGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Research Council of Canada has conducted feasibility studies into the development of non-intrusive flight test instrumentation methods with the goal of reducing the cost and time-to-market for certified aerospace products. Video recognition for the collection of flight test time history data was one such non-intrusive method. The advantages of using machine vision for flight data collection are many. One video camera can be used to extract data for many in-flight parameters, reducing instrumentation time, the airworthiness effort, the overall aircraft schedule and associated costs. This paper details the development of flight test video recognition software, calibration algorithms, hardware, and the accuracy of data collected by video via full flight simulator data benchmarks. Video recognition is a convenient means of collecting cockpit flight test data for model development and certification of full flight simulator devices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies ConferenceSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207