MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402683590 · doi:10.4050/f-0080-2024-1230

eVTOL Modeling Frameworks: A Comparative Study

2024· article· en· W4402683590 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kenneth Hui, Vincent Myrand-Lapierre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the last few decades, Canada's National Research Council (NRC) has been at the forefront in analyzing dynamic systems and developing tools to construct aircraft models based on flight test data. With a fixed and rotary-wing aircraft fleet available, NRC has the capability to perform leading edge R&D System Identification (SI); this worldleading SI technology has been developed and has assisted industry partners, Department of National Defense (DND), and various universities in aircraft simulation and development. As a result, NRC has gained extensive experience in modeling aircraft using SI techniques. In collaboration with CAE, this paper demonstrates the acceleration of the NRC's current flight modeling techniques, highlighting recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). A new Bayesian ML software is being developed to identify a 6 degrees of freedom (6-DoF) quasisteady model using simulated flight test data. To achieve this, data from the CAE Sample electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL) simulation platform vehicle during hover maneuvers is utilized. Additionally, this paper presents results on extending the model to include rotor dynamics using the classical SI approach for comparison purposes. In summary, all methods provide a high-fidelity model; with the higher model structure, the vertical acceleration match was noticeably better.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207