MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967351871 · doi:10.4271/2012-01-2047

Examination of the Maskell III Blockage Correction Technique for Full Scale Testing in the NRC 9-Meter Wind Tunnel

2012· article· en· W1967351871 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason Leuschen, Youssef Mébarki

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International journal of commercial vehicles · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFull scaleWind tunnelScale (ratio)DragScale modelEnvironmental scienceReynolds numberMarine engineeringMeteorologyMetreCalibrationEngineeringPhysicsMechanicsElectrical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsAerospace engineeringTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 9-meter wind tunnel of the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada is commonly employed in full-scale testing of class 8 tractors. In this configuration the model blocks 10 - 15% of the test section cross-sectional area, which is greater than generally advocated blockage limits. The NRC utilizes the Maskell III method to correct data for wall interference but the effectiveness of this technique at such blockage levels remained to be seen. Corrected full-scale data was compared to data acquired with a half-scale model to determine how closely the corrected high-blockage data would agree with the low-blockage baseline. The half-scale model presented an opportunity to test at full-scale Reynolds numbers, with less than 4% blockage, which falls within most recommendations of maximum allowable blockage. It will be shown that after correcting the data using the Maskell III method, the wind-averaged drag coefficient of the full- and half-scale baseline cases were within 3 drag counts (ΔCD = 0.003) of each other

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International journal of commercial vehiclesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207