MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309690654 · doi:10.1139/dsa-2021-0051

SOFAR and Auto-link: software tools that bridge the gap between multirotor drone design optimization and CAD

2022· article· en· W4309690654 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Morgan J.S. May, Mateus A.R. Braga, Philip Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueDrone Systems and Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMagellan Aerospace (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsDroneMultirotorCADSoftwareComputer scienceComputer Aided DesignProcess (computing)Bridge (graph theory)Key (lock)Component (thermodynamics)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineering drawingEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several types of tools are used to develop drones. Computer-aided design (CAD) is used for developing the drone geometry, and software such as ComQuest Venture’s Typhon UDX is used for aerodynamic analysis. Presently, both are used independently, and a user then manually bridges the gap between the analysis and the CAD to create a final aerostructure. This manual process can lead to long design times and information transfer errors. An automated design process that automatically selects parts from a database optimizes drone parts cost, while meeting key performance requirements could shorten the design time. This paper presents the Sensible Optimization for Aerial Robots tool for automatically minimizing drone systems’ cost using a commercial component database and linking it directly to CAD software. As drones become increasingly popular, this streamlining of the drone development process will reduce both the time and cost required to develop an optimal structure.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrone Systems and ApplicationsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207