MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405099181 · doi:10.1175/bams-d-23-0311.1

Airborne Soil-Derived Dust Hazards in Aviation

2024· article· en· W4405099181 on OpenAlex
Barbara Scherllin‐Pirscher, Slobodan Ničković, Athanasios Votsis, Bojan Cvetković, Vassilis Amiridis, Tatjana Bolić, Hugues Brenot, Greg Brock, Rory Clarkson, A. J. Durant, Marcus Hirtl, Theodore I. Lekas, Lucia Mona, Hisham Nasser, Claire L. Ryder, Jun Ryuzaki, David Suárez‐Molina, Sara Basart

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

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation OrganizationAir Canada
FundersBarcelona Supercomputing CenterÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftAXA Research FundBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeUniversity of TwenteEuropean Commission
KeywordsAviationVisibilityEnvironmental scienceDust controlAeronauticsMeteorologyEngineeringAerospace engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Airborne mineral dust poses a safety challenge for aviation. Several fatal accidents have happened in dust-laden air due to reduced visibility, strong gusty winds, and wind shear. Dust-induced icing also contributed at least to two fatal accidents. Furthermore, atmospheric dust has long- and short-term effects on aircraft operating conditions due to corrosion and abrasion on the aircraft surfaces and molten ingress deterioration of engine hot section components. The combined impact can increase operating and maintenance costs and increase the overall cost of ownership. While the scientific community has started preparing and providing products based on atmospheric dust modeling and observation, there are still important data and information gaps in the fundamental science. These include (i) insufficient data which could be used to better understand the effects of dust on aircraft as well as on ground systems and operations (e.g., four-dimensional information of dust mineralogy, cost–benefit analysis of the impact of dust on aviation along flight routes), (ii) the identification of airborne dust monitoring and modeling products and services that could enable the flow of relevant information in commercial aviation and in decision-making workflows, and (iii) the underdeveloped, unclear, or absent role of dust hazards in regulations and operational procedures as well as in the training, skill set, and knowledge base of pilots. This review is aimed at both academic and aviation stakeholders and presents the current state-of-the-art knowledge at the intersection of dust hazards, aviation safety, and impacts on flight operations and aircraft maintenance. Significance Statement Several fatal air traffic accidents and incidents have been clearly attributed to the presence of atmospheric dust. Furthermore, dust has long- and short-term effects on aircraft functioning due to corrosive, abrasive, and melting effects on the aircraft skin and engines, which represents a substantial cost of ownership risk for aviation. In the present article, we aim to bridge aviation stakeholders and research communities, synchronizing and facilitating their efforts to address emerging issues related to the intersection of dust hazards, aviation safety, and costs of operations and maintenance. We fill this gap by reviewing and highlighting the impacts of dust on aviation, introducing and discussing the added value of tailored products, and publishing recommendations for both data providers and end users.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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