MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329298154 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1678

Knowledge Based Approach to Wing Weight and Stiffness Estimation at Early Stages of Aircraft Design

2013· article· en· W2329298154 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

Venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceStiffnessFlexibility (engineering)Multidisciplinary approachWingConceptual designArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceIndustrial engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current developments in the Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO) at Bombardier has brought the need for a fast and accurate method of estimating wing weight and stiffness distributions at very early stages of aircraft conceptual design. The method proposed here tries to bring a good compromise between accuracy and speed. It provides an alternative to traditional empirical and scaling methods for a similar rapidity. Artificial neural networks are used here to leverage already existing Bombardier knowledge to improve accuracy while offering more flexibility in terms of design and configuration. Preliminary results show some clear potential both in terms of accuracy and computational performance though further work is needed to fully reach the targets and maximize the potential of the 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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