MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065979106 · doi:10.1115/gt2005-69077

Improved Profile Loss and Deviation Correlations for Axial-Turbine Blade Rows

2005· article· en· W2065979106 on OpenAlexafffund
Junqiang Zhu, S. A. Sjolander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsTrailing edgeRange (aeronautics)TurbineStandard deviationLeading edgeGas turbinesAerospace engineeringMechanicsComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical correlations continue to play an important role in the early stages of turbine design and in the optimizing of the gas path. The recent development of highly-loaded low-pressure (LP) turbines has extended the design space beyond the range of geometric and aerodynamic parameters on which the existing correlations for profile losses and deviation are based. With the aid of a large database of measured profile losses, including in-house results and recent cases from the open literature, the profile loss predictions of Kacker and Okapuu have been reviewed. As a result, a revised correlation is proposed that appears to capture much better the loss behavior of axial-turbine airfoils of recent design, including very highly-loaded LP turbine airfoils. The opportunity was also taken to extend the range of applicability of the correlation for trailing-edge deviation originally proposed by Islam and Sjolander in 1999.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207