MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966116626 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28316

Flow Around a Leading-Edge Slat: Part I — Turbulent Flow Statistics

2014· article· en· W1966116626 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Richard, Stephen J. Wilkins, Joseph W. Hall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds numberParticle image velocimetryWind tunnelTurbulenceTakeoffAirframeAirfoilLift (data mining)Leading edgeNoise (video)VorticityMechanicsAngle of attackGeologyGeometryPhysicsAerospace engineeringAerodynamicsEngineeringVortexMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As aircraft engine noise continues to decrease with advancing research, the focus has been partially shifted to airframe noise. One of the main sources of airframe noise are high lift devices, which includes the leading-edge slat on wings. The leading-edge slat works along with the tail flap to provide increased lift to the aircraft during takeoff and landing. This paper will present the findings of an experimental investigation aimed at identifying the sources of noise produced by the leading-edge slat geometry. The main focus of the experiments was the slat cove. Small scale wind tunnel experiments were undertaken at the University of New Brunswick using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) to obtain time-averaged Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE), Reynolds stresses and vorticity. The experiments were performed at Reynolds numbers of 156,000 and 312,000 for an angle of attack of 20 degrees. The results indicate the presence of a strong shear-layer formed at the slat cusp which is likely to be an significant source of aeroacoustic noise.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207