Comparison of the resonance behaviour of ottertail and voyageur style canoe paddles during the J-stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The canoe paddle has immense cultural and historical significance. Recognized throughout the world, the paddle has remained largely unchanged since its inception thousands of years ago. A major characteristic of performance in a recreational canoe paddle, and one that distinguishes a good paddle from a bad one, involves its tendency to resonate during use. With paddle resonance comes increased fluid resistance and a less efficient stroke. This study compared resonance tendencies of two major types of recreational canoe paddles, the ottertail and voyageur styles, in stiff and flexible formats. Data was acquired during open water canoe use and canoe velocities up to 2.0 m/s During testing two 3-axis accelerometers were mounted on the shaft of the subject paddle. These accelerometers were then connected to onboard data collection instrumentation to record paddle resonance behaviour. Concurrent GPS-based canoe velocities were also recorded. The conventional J-stroke was used for all testing, and the canoe was repeatedly paddled between known points spaced approximately 100 m apart. Fluid driven resonance was observed at two specific phases of the J-stroke, the beginning of the control phase and the beginning of the recovery phase. The magnitude and characteristics of paddle resonance varied with the specific phase of the stroke, canoe paddle stiffness, style and velocity. The combination of these factors that resulted in the lowest paddle resonance of the combinations studied was a flexible ottertail style paddle, being paddled in the range of 1–1.8 m/s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".