MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996531585 · doi:10.4271/2011-38-0036

Naturally Aspirating Isokinetic Total Water Content Probe: Wind Tunnel Test Results and Design Modifications

2011· article· en· W1996531585 on OpenAlexaff
Craig R. Davison, Thomas Ratvasky, Lyle Lilie

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind tunnelWater contentContent (measure theory)Environmental scienceTest (biology)Marine engineeringComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total water content probe for flight- and ground-based testing is being completed. During operation across a range of altitudes and water content conditions, the probe has to maintain isokinetic flow, vaporize the solid and liquid water content and maintain the inlet ice free to ensure isokinetic flow. Despite achieving isokinetic operation, the collection efficiency of particles less than 30 μm can be less than 100%. A correlation of collection efficiency to Stokes number has been determined to correct the results for this effect. In preparation for flight testing an integrated data acquisition, control and power supply unit was developed and successfully tested. Results from testing at the NASA Glenn Icing Research Tunnel are presented covering both ice crystals and super-cooled liquid conditions. The results correspond well to previously published work and problems encountered during previous testing of this probe are shown to have been resolved.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
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