MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000738101

Green house gas (GHG) reduction study for the rotorcraft industry

2020· article· en· W7000738101 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)National Research Council CanadaBell Helicopter Textron (Canada)
FundersOffice National d'études et de Recherches Aérospatiales
KeywordsFuel efficiencyAviationSoftware deploymentAerospaceCivil aviationPropulsionGreenhouse gasAircraft fuel system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global aviation industry adopted a set of targets to mitigate CO2 emissions resulting from air transportation in 2009. The engine fuel burn is the main driver of CO2 emission; hence it will be the focus of this study. Rotorcraft are designed for supporting different types of missions or operations that are different from fixed wing aircraft. For this reason, the rotorcraft strategy for addressing the carbon impact should mainly target the new emerging technologies that will assist in reducing the fuel consumption and the deployment of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF). This paper presents a forecast of the contribution level that could be achieved by rotorcraft industry in CO2 emission reduction in the period up to 2050. A projection of growth in civil rotorcraft fleet worldwide is provided as the starting point. Several new emerging technologies for both rotorcraft and engine together with the implementation scheme and their projected positive net impact on CO2 emission level are considered. Further, the contribution from SAF deployment in rotorcraft operation is analyzed. It is generally recognized that as much as 80% reduction in overall CO2 life cycle emission can be achieved from SAF relative to the fossil-based fuels or Conventional Aviation Fuels (CAF). However, some critical parameters used in predicting the SAF benefits remain uncertain. These pertain to fuel resources, economy, investment and policies. Therefore, consistent with previous studies, several fuel substitution scenarios are considered ranging from the most conservative to an optimistic projection.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207