MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012089464 · doi:10.2514/1.21367

Transient and Limit Cycle Simulation of a Nonlinear Aeroelastic System

2007· article· en· W2012089464 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityTransient (computer programming)Nonlinear systemTransient responseMechanicsLimit cycleWingSteady state (chemistry)Wind tunnelAerodynamicsLimit (mathematics)FlutterAerodynamic forcePhysicsDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Control theory (sociology)Structural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transient and steady-state response of an experimental aeroelastic system to initial displacements in each of its two degrees of freedom is modeled mathematically. The experimental results are from subsonic wind-tunnel tests performed on a 2-degree-of-freedom wing section with a structural, freeplay-type nonlinearity in the pitching degree of freedom. The system is modeled mathematically, and the equations of motion for the linear and three different nonlinear configurations are solved numerically to produce time histories of the wing section displacements in pitch and plunge. Numerical data are compared to experimental results for both the transient and the steady-state stable and unstable limit-cycle oscillations of the experimental apparatus. The mathematical model is modified to reflect the mass distribution and frictional forces present in the experimental apparatus, and the model is validated for the system transient response by comparing numerical and experimental time histories.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
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