MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327672934 · doi:10.2514/6.2006-266

Estimating Maximum Aircraft Icing Environments Using a Large Database of In-Situ Observations

2006· article· en· W2327672934 on OpenAlexafffund
Stewart G. Cober, George A. Isaac

Bibliographic record

Venue44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsIcingIn situDatabaseComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large data base of in-situ aircraft icing observations collected during five field campaigns with two research aircraft is used to assess the 99 and 99.9% liquid water content (LWC) values associated with icing environments. Icing environments assessed include those with drops smaller than 100 μm and those with supercooled large drops (SLD) larger than 100 μm. The low probability LWC values were calculated using an extreme value analysis technique, and the results were compared to those obtained by assuming that the LWC observations could be fitted to exponential, gamma or Weibull distributions. Extreme value analysis allows quantification of the nature of distributions in the tails of the distributions, and hence provides a more accurate method for determining extreme values and their associated confidence limits. The results are compared to the icing envelopes from the Federal Aviation Administration Regulation 25 Appendix C and with other icing envelopes. Scale factors for computation of 99 and 99.9% LWC values for icing environments at horizontal length scales larger than 3 km are also determined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207