MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405943879 · doi:10.3390/aerospace12010021

Emergency Trajectory Structure for UAVs

2024· article· en· W4405943879 on OpenAlex
Maëva Ongale-Obeyi, Damien Goubinat, Daniel Delahaye, Pierre-Loïc Garoche

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

VenueAerospace · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsThales (Canada)
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)WorkloadKey (lock)Benchmark (surveying)ArchitectureTrajectoryComputational complexity theoryRepresentativeness heuristicConstraint (computer-aided design)Focus (optics)Strengths and weaknessesOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringAlgorithmComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of the design of emergency trajectories of air vehicles is one of the key elements in improving airspace safety for air vehicles. The aim is to lighten pilots’ workload, offering quick and effective solutions. However, almost all flight optimizers proposed in the literature still need to be completed when it comes to resolving emergency contexts, which presents a significant disadvantage to the advancement of scientific research. This resolution is based on the following problems: (a) finding paths free of obstacles, (b) ensuring their flight capacity, and finally, (c) calculating trajectories optimizing several criteria with a calculation time constraint (a few minutes). This document analyzes the safety landing problem and proposes an architecture that effectively reduces complexity and ensures solvability within a reasonable computational time. This architectural framework is designed to be adaptable, allowing for testing several algorithms to provide a quick overview of their strengths and weaknesses in this context. The primary aim of these tests is to benchmark the computational time of the overall architecture, ensuring that this adaptable framework is fully capable of handling the problem’s complexity. It is important to note that the algorithms chosen address only a simplified version of the problem. The initial results are promising in terms of time response and the potential to enhance the representativeness and complexity of the problem. The next phase of our research will focus on striking the right balance between complexity, representativity, and computational time, aiming to impact emergency response significantly.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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