MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053431119

Urban Air Mobility Electric Propulsor Test Stand

2020· report· en· W7053431119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Subatomic Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropulsorWind tunnelComponent (thermodynamics)PropellerFoundation (evidence)Ranging
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design Team 6 has been requested to design an Urban Air Mobility Electric Propulsor Stand under the University of Manitoba IDEA project by General Electric Aviation, StandardAero and WestCaRD. This stand must secure an electric propulsor with a propeller diameter ranging from 6 to 9 feet in the centerline of the wind tunnel at the Testing, Research and Development Centre in Winnipeg. This report showcases the final design of the stand with the initial concepts, a final detailed design and analysis. The team narrowed the choice down to two concepts with feedback from the client and a structured concept selection process. The best features of these concepts were combined to get to the final design. The final design is a two-tier 20.5 feet static design with 2 feet of vertical telescoping on the top. The vertical actuation on the top is achieved using a screw jack and an electric motor. The mostly static design with a dynamic component at the top allows us to achieve the accuracy required to keep the propulsor in the centerline of the wind tunnel while keeping the design sturdy and easy to maintain. This design is, therefore, a very balanced design to solve the presented problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicAtomic and Subatomic Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207