MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317637363 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-2397

Maverick and Skunk Works: Representing Aerospace in Popular Culture

2023· article· en· W4317637363 on OpenAlexaff
James Walton, Patrick LeBeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioAerospaceAeronauticsWork (physics)EngineeringCharacter (mathematics)Test (biology)Production (economics)Architectural engineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineeringTelecommunicationsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2397.vid Lockheed Martin Skunk Works was approached in the summer of 2017 by Paramount Studios to provide technical support for the long-awaited second chapter of the movie, Top Gun. In the second installment, Top Gun: Maverick, the story called for a manned hypersonic test aircraft that the lead character, Maverick, would fly and push to its limits, as only Maverick can. This paper describes how the relationship between the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and the Paramount Studios Production Team started, the development of the Darkstar concept, the building of a full-scale mockup for filming, and continued support of the production during script development and filming. Further, and arguably the most important part of this paper, we will discuss the impact of doing a very out-of-the ordinary project (for us) on the Skunk Works team directly responsible for the work, and how very public projects like this can help the Company, and also the industry at large.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1490.018

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA SCITECH 2023 ForumSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207