MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733546908 · doi:10.4050/f-0073-2017-12117

Analytic Tool Correlation Status for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator Program

2017· article· en· W2733546908 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Tuozzo, Eric P. Fox, Erez Eller, Bryan Mayrides, Peter F. Lorber, Thomas Zientek, Robert Narducci, Taylor Sproul

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJoint (building)CorrelationComputer architectureEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fundamental objectives of the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR TD) Air Vehicle Development program are to mature critical technologies as well as analysis tools for Future Vertical Lift (FVL). This paper summarizes the current status of analytic tool correlation performed by the Sikorsky and Boeing JMR Team. The toolset spans the disciplines of aerodynamic performance and external acoustics, dynamics and stability, handling qualities, and loads. The validation database currently includes XH-59A flight test, X2 TECHNOLOGY™ Demonstrator flight test, S-97 RAIDER® wind tunnel tests, and SB>1 DEFIANT™ Aircraft wind tunnel tests. Future planned work is discussed including additional correlation against Powered System Test Bed (PSTB), SB>1 DEFIANT™ Aircraft flight test, and S-97 RAIDER® flight test. The maturity of the toolset at the completion of the program will be sufficient for accurate predictions of X2® architecture aircraft capabilities that meet or exceed the requirements of the FVL Capability Set 3 (CS3) class.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207