MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074655754 · doi:10.2495/op070201

Aerodynamic optimization of a biplane configuration using differential evolution

2007· article· en· W2074655754 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on the built environment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAirfoilBiplaneChord (peer-to-peer)Angle of attackAerodynamicsWingComputer scienceLift-to-drag ratioDragLift (data mining)MathematicsAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents our work on designing a biplane configuration that has a minimum drag to lift ratio. This problem is a mixed optimization problem in that both discrete and continuous variables are used. Fourteen parameters were used to fully describe the biplane configuration and calculate performance. Performance calculations were based on Munk's general biplane theory. Each wing required six parameters; airfoil profile type, span, tip and root chord lengths, angle of attack, and sweep angle. Two parameters were used to define the horizontal stagger and vertical gap between the two planes. The airfoil profile types were stored in an indexed database which allowed us to obtain the section's aerodynamic characteristics. Our analysis showed that differential evolution found the optimum solution quickly. The characteristics of the resultant optimum solution will be discussed in detail, along with our observations of how the process needs to be adjusted for optimum performance.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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