MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524428880 · doi:10.4271/2002-01-0529

Aerodynamic Drag of a Compact SUV as Measured On-Road and in the Wind Tunnel

2002· article· en· W1524428880 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Howell, C.M. Sherwin, Martin Passmore, Geoff Le Good

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsBentley (Canada)
FundersLoughborough University
KeywordsAerodynamicsWind tunnelDragAerodynamic dragAerospace engineeringMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer sciencePhysicsEngineeringAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing concerns about the environmental impact of road vehicles will lead to a reduction in the aerodynamic drag for all passenger cars. This includes Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks which have relatively high drag coefficients and large frontal area. The wind tunnel remains the tool of choice for the vehicle aerodynamicist, but it is important that the benefits obtained in the wind tunnel reflect improvements to the vehicle on the road. Coastdown measurements obtained using a Land Rover Freelander, in various configurations, have been made to determine aerodynamic drag and these have been compared with wind tunnel data for the same vehicle. Repeatability of the coastdown data, the effects of drag variation near to zero yaw and asymmetry in the drag-yaw data on the results from coastdown testing are assessed. Alternative blockage corrections for the wind tunnel measurements are examined. A reasonable correlation between wind tunnel and on-road aerodynamic drag data is established for the configurations tested.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207