MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588319731 · doi:10.1063/1.4974616

Integration of structural health monitoring solutions onto commercial aircraft via the Federal Aviation Administration structural health monitoring research program

2017· article· en· W2588319731 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul Swindell, Jon Doyle, Dennis P. Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSandia National LaboratoriesFederal Aviation AdministrationIndigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
KeywordsAirworthinessAviationStructural health monitoringAeronauticsAircraft maintenanceSystems engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringCertificationAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) started a research program in structural health monitoring (SHM) in 2011. The program’s goal was to understand the technical gaps of implementing SHM on commercial aircraft and the potential effects on FAA regulations and guidance. The program evolved into a demonstration program consisting of a team from Sandia National Labs Airworthiness Assurance NDI Center (AANC), the Boeing Corporation, Delta Air Lines, Structural Monitoring Systems (SMS), Anodyne Electronics Manufacturing Corp (AEM) and the FAA. This paper will discuss the program from the selection of the inspection problem, the SHM system (Comparative Vacuum Monitoring-CVM) that was selected as the inspection solution and the testing completed to provide sufficient data to gain the first approved use of an SHM system for routine maintenance on commercial US aircraft.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207