MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018550573 · doi:10.2514/6.2009-5661

Temperature Variation of Optical Sensors on a wing during wind tunnel tests

2009· article· en· W2018550573 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrei Vladimir Popov, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Mahmoud Mamou, Teodor Lucian Grigorie

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Wind tunnelWingEnvironmental scienceAerospace engineeringAtmospheric sciencesGeologyEngineeringPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, wind tunnel measurements are presented for the airflow fluctuation detection using pressure optical sensors. A number of 21 wind tunnel test runs for various Mach numbers, angles of attack and Reynolds numbers were performed in the 6’×9’ wind tunnel at the Institute for Aerospace Research at the National Research Council Canada (IAR/NRC). A rectangular finite aspect ratio half wing, having a NACA 4415 cross-section, was considered with its upper surface instrumented with pressure taps, pressure optical sensors and one Kulite transducer. The Mach number was varied from 0.1 to 0.3 and the angles of attack range was within -3 to 3. Unsteady pressure signals were recorded and a thorough comparison, in terms of unsteady and mean pressure coefficients, was performed between the measurements from the three sets of the pressure transducers. Temperature corrections were considered in the pressure measurements by optical sensors. Comparisons were also performed against theoretical predictions using XFoil CFD code, and mean errors smaller than 10% was noticed between the measured and the predicted data.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control ConferenceSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207