MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221031175 · doi:10.15866/irease.v15i1.21324

Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluids Endurance Under Natural and Artificial Snow: a Comparative Study

2022· article· en· W4221031175 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Villeneuve, Claire Charpentier, Jean-Denis Brassard, Gelareh Momen, Antoine Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Aerospace Engineering (IREASE) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsTransport CanadaUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsSnowIcingEnvironmental scienceSnow removalCold climateNatural (archaeology)MeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The usage of De-Icing and Anti-Icing fluids is the most common method recognized to protect aircraft on the ground from freezing and frozen contaminants. The snow endurance times, which means the duration that a fluid can protect the vehicle from snow accumulations, is currently determined outdoor under natural conditions. To replace this expensive and very impractical method, the Anti-Icing Materials International Laboratory developed snow machine was used to perform a comparative study. In this first study, three commercial fluids were tested at various snow intensity rates under artificial snow generated with the snow machine in a cold chamber to validate the testing procedure and investigate the way forward. The results obtained were then positively compared to natural snow endurance times. They were also compared with natural snow regression curves, showing similar trends. This study demonstrated the great potential of this method showing the necessity of pursuing this investigation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Aerospace Engineering (IREASE)Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207