MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078280755 · doi:10.2514/1.j051609

Generalization of the Far-Field Drag Decomposition Method to Unsteady Flows

2013· article· en· W2078280755 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Gariépy, Jean‐Yves Trépanier, Benoit Malouin

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique MontréalPratt and Whitney Canada
KeywordsDragDrag coefficientParasitic dragMechanicsTransonicWave dragDrag divergence Mach numberPhysicsDrag equationClassical mechanicsLift-induced dragComputational fluid dynamicsFlow (mathematics)Aerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Far-field drag-prediction and decomposition methods are powerful tools that increase the accuracy of the drag coefficient computed from computational fluid dynamics results by removing the spurious drag caused by numerical procedures. Furthermore, these methods allow a physical decomposition of the drag in terms of viscous, wave, and induced drag. However, they are currently limited to steady flows. This paper presents a generalization of the commonly used drag-prediction and decomposition method to unsteady flows. This generalized method, designed for three-dimensional viscous, subsonic, and transonic flows, is defined for both inertial and noninertial coordinate systems and allows drag decomposition to be performed on either static or moving/rotating meshes. This generalization also allows the drag caused by the unsteady fluctuations of the flow to be identified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207