MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W48783140 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000008149

Fuel burn prediction algorithm for cruise, constant speed and level flight segments

2013· article· en· W48783140 on OpenAlex

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

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)CruiseAltitude (triangle)AlgorithmComputer scienceFuel efficiencyAerospace engineeringAutomotive engineeringSimulationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a new algorithm that predicts the quantity of fuel burned by an aircraft flying at a constant speed and altitude. It considers the continuous fuel burn rate variation with time caused by the gross weight (and centre of gravity position) modification due to the fuel burn process itself. The algorithm was developed for use by the Flight Management System (FMS) and employs the same aircraft performance data as the existing FMS fuel burn prediction algorithms. The new fuel burn method was developed for aircraft models that use the centre of gravity position as well as for models that do not consider the centre of gravity position. This algorithm was developed for normal flight conditions. Algorithm performances were evaluated for two aircraft models: one for models that use an aircraft’s centre of gravity position – a more complex and computing intensive method, and one for those that do not use the centre of gravity position. The validation data were generated based on the information produced on a CMC Electronics – Esterline FMS platform that used identical aircraft models and performance data for identical flight conditions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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