MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Hindenberg, Airships and the Airlander is the Airship Rising Again?

2024· article· en· W4401616395 on OpenAlexaff
Hamza Hamid -, A Parah Shabir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsFixed wingBuoyancyEngineeringAstrobiologyAerospace engineeringWingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airships slipped into history with the rise of fixed-wing aeroplanes and the Hindenberg disaster of 1937. Commercial, humanitarian and ecological concerns are reviving interest in these gentle giants once again. Multiple research companies are investing in the airship technology, and the airship is set to rise again. However, concerns regarding buoyancy, stability and economy remain. Currently, the airship is set to cater to a niche market, and it won't be long before we see some of these gentle giants in the skies again.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary ResearchSame topicAerospace Engineering and Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207