EQUIVALENT METHOD OF ACOUSTIC CERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT FAMILY WITH THE MODIFIED POWER PLANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An equivalent method defining the noise level on the ground of a family of aircraft with power plant modifications leading to a change in the aircraft's acoustic characteristics is stated in this paper. The method was developed in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Environmental Technical Manual (ICAO, Environmental Technical Manual. Volume 1: Procedures for the Noise Certification of Aircraft, Dîc. 9501 AN/929, 1st ed., Montreal, Canada: ICAO, 2010), and has been applied in Russia since 1995 for repeated acoustic certification of a family of aircraft according to the standards stipulated in chapters 3 and 4 of the aforementioned manual (annex 16, volume I). The equivalent method was created based on extrapolation techniques of static engine noise tests under flight conditions developed at TsAGI (the AERONOISE software package) and uses regression analysis methods for statistical estimation of aircraft noise levels at reference points. The effective noise levels of the modified versions of the family of aircraft and their 90% confidential intervals are defined based on the flight acoustic test results of the base aircraft version and the extrapolation data on the flight conditions of the land static test results of the base and modified versions of the engines of the family of aircraft. The structure of the equivalent method is stated and an estimation of accuracy of the airplane noise level determination method on the ground in the base configuration is given. Examples of practical applications of the method for modified versions of domestic airplanes of the Tu-204/214, IL-76TD, IL-96-300/400, and An-124-100 type are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".