Design of improved engine shipping containers : final report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
StandardAero has experienced difficulty with their current shipping containers for Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A engines, which are not providing sufficient protection from shipping mishandling. This has resulted in numerous damaged engines and warranty repair costs that StandardAero has been responsible for. The purpose of this report is to design several new shipping containers that will provide improved engine protection, while being durable, easy to store and still being cost effective. Following brainstorming and concept generation sessions, six concepts have been developed which all meet , in different ways, the criteria identified by the client. At the request of StandardAero, a cost-‐benefit analysis has been completed and is presented in the report to help identify the most cost-‐effective solution. Following the cost-‐benefit analysis and examination of each concept against the objectives identified, it is recommended that a one piece plastic stacking cover be implemented using StandardAero’s existing universal base. This concept provides the best combination of engine protection, durability, easy storage and cost effectiveness. In addition several other improvements have been recommended to help reduce the frequency and cost of shipping damage encountered. By implementing the suggested shipping container and improvements, StandardAero has the potential to significantly reduce the frequency, and extent of shipping damage while at the same time reducing the expense of shipping materials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".