MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005536406 · doi:10.2514/1.37073

Closed-Loop Control Simulations on a Morphing Wing

2008· article· en· W2005536406 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

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingWingAerospace engineeringFlight control surfacesLoop (graph theory)Control theory (sociology)AerodynamicsComputer scienceWing configurationControl (management)AeronauticsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

steps for the deflection but adds a sinusoidal component for the angle of attack; this simulation is closer to the cruise flight regime. During the third simulation, both the angle of attack and the deflection are modeled as a sinusoidal wave. The outputs (the deflection and the transition point position) are well controlled and the results are very good. Hence, it is concluded that this original method of control is suitable for the control of the transition point position from the laminar to turbulent region on a morphing wing airfoil.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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