MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582551362 · doi:10.4271/2007-01-2402

Root Cause Identification and Methods of Reducing Rear Window Buffeting Noise

2007· article· en· W1582551362 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

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)AeroelasticityWindow (computing)Noise (video)Computer scienceAcousticsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringAerodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">Rear Window Buffeting (RWB) is the low-frequency, high amplitude, sound that occurs in many 4-door vehicles when driven 30-70 mph with one rear window lowered. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the mechanisms of RWB are similar to that of sun roof buffeting and to describe the results of several actions suspected in contributing to the severity of RWB. Finally, the results of several experiments are discussed that may lend insight into ways to reduce the severity of this event. A detailed examination of the side airflow patterns of a small Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) shows these criteria exist on a small SUV, and experiments to modify the SUV airflow pattern to reduce RWB are performed with varying degrees of success. Based on the results of these experiments, design actions are recommended that may result in the reduction of RWB.</div>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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