MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W206792809

Vorticity Reorientation in the Near-Tip Region of Rapidly-Accelerating, Finite Aspect-Ratio Plates

2013· article· en· W206792809 on OpenAlexaff
Jochen Kriegseis, David E. Rival

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVorticityVortexMechanicsPhysicsParticle image velocimetryAspect ratio (aeronautics)AccelerationVortex sheetKinematicsClassical mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation into the influence of seemingly analogous plate kinematics (plunge vs. tow) for rapidly accelerating, low aspect-ratio plates has been performed. The data was obtained simultaneously by means of a three-dimensional particle tracking velocimetry (3D-PTV) system together with a six-component force/moment sensor. Despite identical effective shear-layer velocities and effective angles of attack, the force histories are found to vary between the two aforementioned cases (plunge and tow). The LEV formation for both cases was found to be nearly identical during the acceleration phase. However, at the end of acceleration the tow LEV ’rolled-off’ the plate. As such, the development of vortex force was also observed to cease once this roll-off process started. In accordance with the literature, the tip vortex has been identified to be an important contributor in the overall force production. Tip-vortex strength as well as its relative positioning to the plate surface influences the instantaneous force. However, in addition to these previous studies it has now been demonstrated, based on a Lamb-vector analysis, that the sensitivity of the resulting vortex-force formation is dependent on the interplay between streamwise vorticity and spanwise (inboard) velocity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology)Same topicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsFrench-language works237,207