MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291002479 · doi:10.1016/j.sna.2022.113778

Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors ice detection: Methodologies and performance

2022· article· en· W4291002479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malte Frövel

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors and Actuators A Physical · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020HORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsIcingIcing conditionsIce crystalsMeteorologyIce cloudRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceWind tunnelAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Researches have been done recently in order to create and adapt new systems to the recent Appendix O FAR 25 Aeronautical aircraft icing regulations. One important issue are the Supercooled Large Droplets (SLD) that are an important hazard in many cases. Novel sensor technologies for aircraft are being developed in order to assess the ice severity and to discriminate between large size droplets and small size droplets ice accretions. The European SENS4ICE project gives founding for the research and development of several aeronautical ice detection systems that can discriminate between Appendix C and Appendix O conditions. In the present paper, the strengths and weaknesses of the Fiber Optic ice Detector (FOD) developed by INTA are discussed using a test matrix from the Canadian National Research Council (NRC). The FOD has presented good performance at the NRC ice wind tunnel tests in the ice detection time, detecting ice in most cases earlier than required by the actual standard (ED-103). Its lightness, low intrusiveness and small size, makes the FOD ideal for aeronautical applications. It measures indirectly the icing cloud characteristics, such as the liquid water content (LWC) and the ice accretion rate, so only an approximate severity assessment could be done.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensors and Actuators A PhysicalSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207