MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387817937 · doi:10.47852/bonviewaaes32021471

Machine Learning Insights into Hypersonics Research Evolution: A 21st Century Perspective

2023· article· en· W4387817937 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Advanced Engineering Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceField (mathematics)Computer scienceManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the field of hypersonics has witnessed substantial growth in research and development activities, driven by its diverse range of applications spanning both military and commercial sectors. Governments and private companies in several countries have made substantial investments in hypersonic technologies to gain a competitive edge, secure or enhance strategic capabilities, and bolster deterrence measures. In this rapidly evolving landscape, the ability to swiftly and accurately identify emerging technologies becomes paramount. Leveraging the advancements in information technology and computer science, which enable the analysis of vast datasets and the extraction of concealed trends and patterns, this study aims to provide valuable insights to decision-makers in the hypersonics domain. Our focus is on scientific publications related to hypersonics, encompassing the years 2000 to 2020. We employ state-of-the-art natural language processing and machine learning techniques to comprehensively characterize the research landscape. The urgency of this endeavor lies in the necessity for organizations to remain at the forefront of hypersonic research. By algorithmically identifying and tracking 12 key latent research themes and examining their temporal evolution, we offer a structured and objective analysis of the field. Our methodology eliminates subjectivity from the assessment, facilitating consistent comparisons both across topics and across different time intervals. In addition, through our extensive publication similarity analysis, we uncover nuanced patterns that shed light on the cyclical nature of research trends over the two decades under investigation. This comprehensive examination of the hypersonics research landscape not only underscores its critical significance but also provides a robust foundation for informed decision-making. As such, our study serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders seeking to navigate the dynamics of the rapidly advancing field of hypersonics effectively. Received: 2 August 2023 | Revised: 25 September 2023 | Accepted: 12 October 2023 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement Data are retrievable by running the search query mentioned in the manuscript on the data source, i.e., Scopus. In addition, the raw data can be made available upon request. Please contact the corresponding author.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.275 · 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