MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954561314 · doi:10.2514/1.i010663

Identification and Validation of an Engine Performance Database Model for the Flight Management System

2019· article· en· W2954561314 on OpenAlexafffund
Georges Ghazi, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Information Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation
KeywordsClimbFlight simulatorTakeoffDescent (aeronautics)EngineeringFlight management systemTrajectoryAircraft flight mechanicsFly-by-wireSimulationTakeoff and landingComputer scienceAerodynamicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Paper presents the validation studies results of an engine mathematical performance model identification for flight management system trajectory prediction and optimization applications. The methodology was applied to the Cessna Citation X business aircraft, for which the aircraft flight manual and the flight crew operating manual are available. In addition, another data source based on computerized trajectory was also used to generate several climb and descent flight profiles required in the engine model identification process. To demonstrate and further validate the accuracy of the proposed engine performance model, a level-D research aircraft flight simulator of the Cessna Citation X was used as a reference. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, AC 120-40B), level D corresponds to the highest qualification level for the flight dynamics and engine modeling. Validation of the methodology was accomplished by comparing the prediction model with a series of flight data collected with the flight simulator for different flight conditions and different flight phases including takeoff, climb, cruise, and idle descent. Comparison results were validated with a tolerance of for each engine performance predicted by the model in terms of fan speed, core speed, thrust, and fuel flow.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerospace Information SystemsSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207