A methodology to determine the precision uncertainty in gas turbine engine cycle models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes a methodology to define and quantify the precision uncertainties in aerothermodynamic cycle model comparisons. The total uncertainty depends on biases and random errors commonly found in such comparisons. These biases and random errors are classified and discussed based on observations found in the literature. The biases account for effects such as differences in model inputs, the configurations being simulated, and thermodynamic packages. Random errors consider the effects on the physics modeling and numerical methods used in cycle models. The methodology is applied to a comparison of two cycle models, designated as the model subject to comparison and reference model, respectively. The former is the so-called Aerothermodynamic Generic Cycle Model developed in-house at the Laboratory of Applied Research in Active Control, Avionics and AeroServoElasticity (LARCASE); the latter is an equivalent model programmed in the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS). The proposed methodology is intended to quantify the bias and random errors effects on different cycle parameters of interest, such as thrust, specific fuel consumption, among others. Each bias and random errors are determined by deliberately preventing the effects from other biases and random errors. The methodology presented in this paper can be extended to other cycle model comparisons. Moreover, the uncertainty figures derived in this work are recommended to be used in other model comparisons when no better reference is available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it