Investigation of the near-field tip vortex behind an oscillating wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The near-field tip-vortex flow structure behind an oscillating NACA 0015 wing was investigated at ${\hbox {{\it Re}}}\,{=}\,1.86 \times 10^{5}$ . For attached-flow and light-stall oscillations, a small hysteretic property existed between the pitch-up and pitch-down motion, and many of the vortex flow features were found to be qualitatively similar to those of a static wing. For deep-stall oscillations, the wing oscillations imposed a strong discrepancy in contour shapes and magnitudes between the pitch-up and pitch-down phases of the oscillation cycle. The vortex was less organized during pitch-down (as a result of leading-edge-vortex-induced massive flow separation) than during pitch-up. The tangential velocity, circulation and lift-induced drag increased progressively with the airfoil incidence, and had higher magnitudes during pitch-up than during pitch-down, while varying slightly with the downstream distance. The vortex size, however, was larger during pitch-down than during pitch-up. The axial flow was always wake-like during the deep-stall oscillation cycle. The normalized circulation within the inner region of the tip vortex also exhibited a self-similar structure, similar to that of a static wing, and was insensitive to the reduced frequency.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".