A Comparison of Data-Reduction Methods for a Seven-Hole Probe
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
Two data-reduction methods were compared for the calibration of a seven-hole conical pressure probe in incompressible flow. The polynomial curve-fit method of Gallington and the direct-interpolation method of Zilliac were applied to the same set of calibration data, for a range of calibration grid spacings. The results showed that the choice of data-reduction method and the choice of calibration grid spacing each have an influence on the measurement uncertainty. At high flow angles, greater than 30 deg, where flow may separate from the leeward side of the probe, the direct-interpolation method was preferable. At low flow angles, less than 30 deg, where flow remains attached about the probe, neither data-reduction method had any advantage. For both methods, a calibration grid with a maximum interval of 10 deg was recommended. The Reynolds-number sensitivity of the probe began at Re=5000, based on probe diameter, and was independent of the data-reduction method or calibration grid spacing.
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