MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Marine Propeller Aerodynamic Test Facility

2007· article· en· W2077625188 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStrain · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellerThrustMarine engineeringTorqueAerodynamicsReynolds numberWind tunnelRepeatabilityBlade pitchEngineeringAerospace engineeringMechanicsPhysicsMathematicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Conventional propeller test facilities such as tow tanks, cavitation tunnels and the open sea have various limitations such as cost, accessibility, size and accuracy. An aerodynamic marine propeller test facility has been developed at the University of British Columbia to allow for performance evaluations of full‐size marine propellers in the highly controlled environment of a wind tunnel. Thorough static and dynamic calibrations of the test rig confirmed that the sensors have a highly linear response with essentially zero crosstalk between the thrust and torque signals. Performance curves acquired from a commercial 24 × 24 propeller show that the repeatability error of the torque and thrust measurements is <1%. The uncertainties of the advance ratio, torque coefficient, thrust coefficient, and efficiency are 0.2%, 0.5%, 0.1%, and 1%, respectively. Performance curves measured over a range of the Reynolds numbers show that Reynolds number independence is achieved for Reynolds numbers above approximately 5 × 10 5 .

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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