MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2690255643 · doi:10.4050/f-0071-2015-10170

ADS-33 Evaluation of the International CH-47 Chinook

2015· article· en· W2690255643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Colosi, Matthew Parsons, Pieter Einthoven, Erik Kocher, Bryan Carrothers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windComputer scienceFisheryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DAFCS (Digital Automatic Flight Control System) equipped CH‐47 Chinook has been successfully deployed for the US Army and numerous international customers. Several of those international customers contracted with Boeing for ADS‐33 evaluations of the handling qualities of the aircraft including both the predicted and assigned (i.e. the Mission Task Elements) handling qualities. This paper covers the tailoring of ADS‐33 for the Chinook helicopter, the conduct of ADS‐33 testing and the results of the ADS‐33 testing. The primary focus of this paper will be centered on the Canadian long‐range CH147F ADS‐33 evaluation, which was a complete evaluation against all sections of ADS‐33 and was flown in 2012 and 2013. Additional lessons from two other standard‐range international customer evaluations, flown in 2013 and 2014 are also included. All of the configurations featured the DAFCS OFP 3.2 control laws, or a derivative thereof, which was originally developed for the US Army long range configuration. The section on the tailoring of ADS‐33 describes the process by which Boeing tailored ADS‐33E‐PRF for the Chinook and includes recommendations for future releases of ADS‐33. The assessment section describes the test techniques used and conduct of the testing, along with a summary of the results from both the predicted and assigned sections of ADS‐33.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207