MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017121231 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2002-31263

Cross-Wire Measurements in the Wake of an Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers With and Without Acoustic Excitation

2002· article· en· W2017121231 on OpenAlexaff
Serhiy Yarusevych, Pierre E. Sullivan, J. G. Kawall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilWakeReynolds numberVortex sheddingAngle of attackWind tunnelDragLift-to-drag ratioMechanicsLift (data mining)VortexFlow separationStarting vortexPhysicsWake turbulenceFlow visualizationAcousticsNACA airfoilAerodynamicsFlow (mathematics)Vortex ringBoundary layerComputer scienceTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wake structure and vortex shedding characteristics of a NACA 0025 airfoil were studied experimentally. Wind tunnel experiments were carried out for three Reynolds numbers and three angles of attack by means of cross-wire measurements, spectral analysis and complementary surface flow visualization. Evidence of wake vortex shedding and flow separation was obtained for most of the cases examined, and dependence of these phenomena on Reynolds number and angle of attack was found. External acoustic excitation at a particular frequency was found to eliminate or reduce the separation region and decrease the airfoil wake. Moreover, the results show that the acoustic excitation has a significant effect on vortex shedding and can improve airfoil performance, i.e. produce an increase of the lift and/or decrease of the drag.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows→French-language works237,207→