MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402681602 · doi:10.4050/f-0080-2024-1408

Probabilistic Trajectory Analysis of Debris Items for Crash Investigation

2024· article· en· W4402681602 on OpenAlexaff
Dustin Coleman, Arild Barrett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashTrajectoryProbabilistic logicComputer scienceDebrisArtificial intelligenceMeteorologyProgramming languageGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air safety investigators must seek out all available sources of evidence from an aircraft crash incident in order to make informed root cause determinations. This is especially important when the incident aircraft was not equipped with flight and voice data recorders. Previous investigations have utilized trajectory analysis methods as a technique to determine where debris items may be found on the ground after an in-flight breakup. Alternatively, if the ground placement of debris items is known, then the airspeed and heading of the aircraft may be back-calculated. In this paper, a probabilistic trajectory analysis is developed to infer crash debris initial conditions at time of impact. Digital methods including computational fluid dynamics have been employed to calculate debris item aerodynamic coefficients and probabilistic sampling techniques to determine a likely range of initial angles and initial velocities. Finally, two example cases are presented to illustrate application of the technique and its utility for design making with respect to crash investigation.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207