MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040797512 · doi:10.2514/1.j053755

Evaluation of Aerodynamic Loads via Reduced-Order Methodology

2015· article· en· W2040797512 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Fossati

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCompute CanadaUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
KeywordsTransonicAerodynamicsCentroidal Voronoi tessellationComputational fluid dynamicsInterpolation (computer graphics)Voronoi diagramParametric statisticsSwept wingMathematicsAeroelasticityDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)TurbulenceApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationAerospace engineeringMechanicsEngineeringGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centroidal Voronoi tessellation, leave-one-out cross validation, proper orthogonal decomposition, and multidimensional interpolation are integrated to define a reduced-order modeling approach for the parametric evaluation of steady aerodynamic loads. The proper orthogonal decomposition-based methodology allows reducing the number of degrees of freedom of the problem while maintaining good accuracy for the solution of complex three-dimensional viscous turbulent flows. As a result, it yields fairly accurate solutions at a fraction of the time required by standard computational fluid dynamics approaches. Three-dimensional examples for fixed- and rotary-wing cases of industrial relevance are used to assess the method in the cases of subsonic and transonic flow conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207