MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413190997 · doi:10.2514/6.2025-98117

Design, Challenges, and Innovations of the CREATeV Solar-Powered UAV

2025· article· en· W4413190997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Minsu Joo, Goetz Bramesfeld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSolar poweredSystems engineeringAerospace engineeringSolar energyEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Clean Renewable Energy Aerial Test Vehicle (CREATeV) project has been the focus of the Applied Aerodynamics Laboratory of Flight (AALF) at Toronto Metropolitan University since 2017. This initiative aims to develop a solar-powered uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) capable of breaking the world record for the longest autonomous flight. Featuring a 6-meter wingspan, lightweight composite structure, and 96-cell solar array, CREATeV serves not only as a technological innovation in ultra-long endurance flight but also as a foundation for generating new and diverse research avenues. Over the past eight years, the project has accumulated over 70 hours of logged flight time and generated numerous publications on topics such as flight path optimization, wind tunnel testing, design optimizations, and flight testing methodologies. Current research efforts focus on further extending the aircraft’s endurance, including dynamic soaring techniques making use of temperature inversions, gust energy harvesting through aeroelastic tailoring, and optimized daytime flight strategies to maximize solar charge. This paper provides an overview of the ongoing activities in the lab, showcasing the progress of the CREATeV project, recent test flights and experiments, and the future research opportunities it continues to present. It also discusses the challenges faced during development along with the solutions implemented to address them.

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 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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207