MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252612491 · doi:10.1504/ijpd.2016.083624

Life-cycle costing of an aircraft wing project with innovative materials using an eco-demonstrator

2016· article· en· W4252612491 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Product Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivity-based costingLife cycle costingCost driverEngineeringProcess (computing)Systems engineeringManufacturing engineeringTransport engineeringComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cost is an issue of primary importance in the decision process of complex industrial projects. However, very few studies have considered the ownership cost of an ecologically framed aircraft, especially for the wing design. This is an issue of primary importance because the use of unmanned aerial vehicles is growing very rapidly and these vehicles can become an environmental burden. A Life-Cycle Costing model for evaluating the cost of a real aircraft wing is presented. The eco-demonstrator aircraft enabled the use of different materials, including composite and ecological materials. A model was developed and proved to be very robust. The cost breakdown analysis revealed opportunities for making green materials a financially viable option for aeronautical structures in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · 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