MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948750695 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2018-0231

Evaluation of energy efficient propulsion technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles

2019· article· en· W2948750695 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jay Matlock, Stephen Warwick, Philipp Sharikov, Jenner Richards, Afzal Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Thermoelectric Materials and Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropulsionAutomotive engineeringHybrid vehicleFuel efficiencyIn-space propulsion technologiesTest benchModular designHybrid systemAerospaceEfficient energy useEnergy consumptionAerospace engineeringElectrically powered spacecraft propulsionComputer scienceEngineeringPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition to cleaner, more efficient and longer-endurance aircraft is at the forefront of research and development in air vehicles. The focus of this research is to experimentally evaluate hybrid propulsion and energy harvesting systems in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Hybrid systems offer benefits over conventional gasoline and electric systems including lower environmental impacts, reduced fuel consumption, redundancy, and distributed propulsion. Additional energy efficiency can be achieved by harvesting some of the thermal energy of the exhaust gases. The development and experimental evaluation of a hybrid propulsion UAV was carried out at the University of Victoria Center for Aerospace Research (UVIC-CfAR) in the framework of the Green Aviation Research & Development Network (GARDN) grant. The work involved the development of a framework to evaluate UAV hybrid propulsion efficiency, and to predict the amount of power harvestable from thermoelectric generators (TEGs). The objective was to combine all of the components into a modular test bench that will allow the performance of the parallel hybrid system to be characterized and compared with theoretical results. Several experiments were performed to collect performance data of various components including a triple-TEG system connected to an engine, and system variables were modified to simulate flight profiles.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Thermoelectric Materials and DevicesFrench-language works237,207