MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057856779 · doi:10.13034/cysj-2014-013

Aerodynamics Simulation for Two Types of Airplane Wings

2014· article· en· W2057856779 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hangzuo Xiang, Jackie Ke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsEarl Haig Secondary School
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirplaneAerodynamicsAeronauticsWingAerospace engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To increase the efficiency of aircraft develop­ment, a simulation has been planned-out to test wing-shape in a virtual environment. The simu­lation tests the efficiency of swept wings, which are angled towards the tail of an airplane, or the efficiency of forward swept wings, angled to­wards the nose of the airplane. The simulation involves parameters to mimic real-world effects on virtual aircraft designs. Such simulations have been used by Boeing to replace the wind tunnel, saving time, money, and lives. In the future, such simulations may eliminate the hindrances of test­ing what wing types belong on what aircraft. Pour augmenter l'efficacité du développe­ment de l'aéronef, une simulation a été conçue pour tester les configurations d'aile dans un envi­ronnement virtuel. La simulation teste l'efficacité des ailes en flèche, qui sont inclinées vers la queue d'un avion, ou de l'efficacité des ailes en flèche vers l'avant, inclinée vers le nez de l'avion. La simulation imite les effets du monde réel sur un avion virtuel en utilisant plusieurs paramètres. Ces simulations ont été utilisées par Boeing pour remplacer la soufflerie, économisant du temps, de l'argent, et des vies. Dans l'avenir, ces simu­lations peuvent éliminer les obstacles de tester quels types d'ailes appartiennent à quel avion.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student Science and TechnologySame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207