Numerical and Experimental Simulations of Flapping Wings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents recent progress in a continuing investigation of the aeromechanical aspects of unsteady flapping wings for micro air vehicles (MAV). Numerical simulations were performed for two-dimensional (2D) pitching-plunging airfoils and three-dimensional (3D) flapping wings, mainly at hover conditions, using an in-house code called INSflow. The results were compared with available experimental data obtained in the water tunnel at the NRC-IAR. The investigation revealed that, at hover conditions, the vortices formed during the airfoil plunging motion may remain near the airfoil and affect new vortex formations, and thus the integral aerodynamic performance. In addition, the flow around the 3D insect-like wing is fully three-dimensional. The tip flow affects the flow separation, reducing the separation intensity. Two-dimensional calculations may over-predict the separation and the shedding vortices, thus affecting the generation of aerodynamic forces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it