Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the aerodynamic characteristics of three hypersonic configurations. Three hypersonic forebodies were designed. For the purpose to integrate with ramjet or scramjet, all forebodies were designed integrated with hypersonic inlet.To better understand the forebody performance, three dimensional flow field calculations of these hypersonic forebodies integrated with hypersonic inlet were conducted in the design and off design conditions. Computational result show that waverider offer an aerodynamic performance advantage in the terms of high lift-drag ratios over the other two configurations. Liftbody offer good aerodynamic performance in subsonic region. The aerodynamic performance of the liftbody integrated with waverider configuration is not comparable to that of pure waverider in the terms of lift-drag ratios and is not comparable to that of pure liftbody in subsonic. But the liftbody integrated with waverider configuration exhibit good lateral-directional and longitudinal-directional stability characteristics. Both pure waverider and liftbody integrated with waverider configuration can provide relatively uniform flow for the inlet and offer good aerodynamic characteristics in the terms of recovery coefficient of total pressure and uniformity coefficient.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".