MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415962944 · doi:10.13111/2066-8201.2016.8.2.7

New Search Space Reduction Algorithm for Vertical Reference Trajectory Optimization

2016· article· en· W2415962944 on OpenAlexafffundabout
MURRIETA-MENDOZA Alejandro, GAGNÉ Jocelyn

Bibliographic record

VenueINCAS BULLETIN · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsFuel efficiencyTrajectoryClimbInterpolation (computer graphics)Reduction (mathematics)Trajectory optimizationComputationComputer scienceAlgorithmSimulationAutomotive engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burning the fuel required to sustain a given flight releases pollution such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and the amount of fuel consumed is also a significant expense for airlines.It is desirable to reduce fuel consumption to reduce both pollution and flight costs.To increase fuel savings in a given flight, one option is to compute the most economical vertical reference trajectory (or flight plan).A deterministic algorithm was developed using a numerical aircraft performance model to determine the most economical vertical flight profile considering take-off weight, flight distance, step climb and weather conditions.This algorithm is based on linear interpolations of the performance model using the Lagrange interpolation method.The algorithm downloads the latest available forecast from Environment Canada according to the departure date and flight coordinates, and calculates the optimal trajectory taking into account the effects of wind and temperature.Techniques to avoid unnecessary calculations are implemented to reduce the computation time.The costs of the reference trajectories proposed by the algorithm are compared with the costs of the reference trajectories proposed by a commercial flight management system using the fuel consumption estimated by the FlightSim® simulator made by Presagis®.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINCAS BULLETINSame topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207