Digital Transformation in Aircraft Design and Certification: Developing Requirements for Modeling Regulatory Documentation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aircraft design and development is complex and regulated by increasingly stringent regulatory documentation. While many disciplines manage design complexity with well-established digital tools, digital transformation of the certification process remains in the early stages of implementation. Models are often used to provide explicit structures to facilitate digital transformation. While several modeling approaches have been applied to regulatory documentation, a gap remains for an established list of requirements for developing effective models in the context of digital transformation. This paper proposes a list of requirements using a requirements elicitation framework adapted from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Needs and Requirements Manual. The adapted research methodology includes problem identification, needs assessment, and requirements development processes. The resulting requirements are validated against needs statements and verified against selected INCOSE requirement statement criteria. Four requirements are selected for a detailed feasibility assessment, which compares the efficacy of process mapping, Unified Modeling Language (UML), and ontological modeling methods to realize the requirements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it