MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892305300

Detection of in-flight icing conditions through the analysis of hydrometeors with a vertically pointing radar

2004· article· en· W2892305300 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Lilly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingMeteorologyRadarRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyEngineeringAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 100 years since the Wright Brothers first flew a powered aircraft, aviation has not only exploded in popularity, but also has faced many challenges. Since 1931 when icing was first suggested as a possible accident explanation, aircraft icing has been recognized as a significant aviation hazard. Despite extensive research and regulations by the US government, in the last several years (1982 to 2000) there were almost 700 lives and over 450 planes lost in US general aviation accidents where icing played some role (Petty et al., 2003). In the United States alone, an average of 24 accidents, 30 fatalities and 96 million dollars in damage result from icing related accidents each year (Paull and Hagy, 1999). Because of these disturbing statistics, pilots,

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207