A study of design improvements for a multi-tethered aerostat system /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Large Adaptive Reflector is a Canadian design for a new radio telescope. The receiver is held at the focus of the reflector by an aerostat tethered to the ground by multiple tethers. One of the main goals in the design of this system is the minimization of the motion of the receiver. Most perturbations are produced by the action of the wind on the aerostat and transmitted to the confluence point via the leash that connects the aerostat to the receiver. For that reason, this work focused on leash-related stabilization techniques. Computer simulations were used to evaluate the benefits of different passive and active methods. Among the passive approaches studied were the use of a constant force spring and of a passive heave compensator. The active methods evaluated included aerostat pitch control and active heave compensation. One of the more promising approaches, a leash made of bungee cable, was evaluated experimentally on a prototype of the system in Penticton, BC. Finally, a pitch control mechanism was designed. This mechanism displaces the leash attachment point on the harness to pitch the aerostat nose up or down.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".