Bibliographic record
Abstract
This undergraduate paper demonstrates the design, analysis, and manufacturing of a rocket deployable electric powered experimental unmanned aerial vehicle. The design process begins with defining the volume and dimensions of the allocated payload space for the UAV in the rocket. These dimensions are given by the aerostructures sub team in the Ryerson Rocketry Club. The dimensions given were used to determine the best configuration for the mission. The wing loading, power loading and endurance of the UAV are obtained from the constrained payload volume in the rocket and the avionics system of the of the UAV. The wing area, UAV weight and power requirements were calculated based on the previously determined values. The power requirement determines the motor size and propeller configuration. Aerodynamics, stability, and control were based the selected airfoil and obtained wing area. After completing the design, foam, additive manufacturing, and composite layups were used to create prototypes of the UAV. These prototypes were used to iterate the aircraft and address any immediate changes. The chosen design is a foldable flying wing, once deployed from the rocket has a wingspan of 70 inches, an aspect ratio of 13.35 and a surface area of 367 in2 . A prototype was created to prove the design feasibility of the UAV. The prototype proved to function as planned, capable of gliding, powered flight, and takeoff.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".