MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003124108 · doi:10.1155/2020/9689604

Multirotor Sizing Methodology with Flight Time Estimation

2020· article· en· W3003124108 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCranfield University
KeywordsMultirotorSizingDroneUSableComputer sciencePropellerSoftwareProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)SimulationEngineeringMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the need for sizing of rotors for multirotor vehicle applications such as personal air transport, delivery, surveillance, and photography. A methodology for the propeller and motor selection is developed and augmented with flight time estimation capabilities. Being multirotor-specific it makes use of the platform’s simplicity to rapidly provide a set of off-the-shelf components ready to be used in the vehicle. Use of operating points makes the comparison process fast, precise, and tailored to specific application. The method is easily implemented in software to provide an automated tool. Furthermore, clearly defined input and output parameters make it also usable as a module in other multicriteria optimisation algorithms. The new methodology is validated through comparison with a consumer-grade drone and the calculated results are compliant with manufacturer’s specification in terms of maximum hover time.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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