MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139467784 · doi:10.2514/6.2008-6417

Icing Wind-Tunnel Icing Test on a Contaminated Full-Scall Wing-Model at Takeoff Conditions

2008· article· en· W2139467784 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsIcingTakeoffWind tunnelAerospace engineeringEnvironmental scienceWingTakeoff and landingAerodynamicsMarine engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Icing wind-tunnel tests had been conducted in the National Research Council Canada’s 3 m x 6 m icing wind-tunnel. The airfoil tested was a full-scale 1.219m (4 ft) NACA 23012 rectangular wing. Takeoff condition was simulated by accelerating the wind speed, and aerodynamic data were obtained while pitching the airfoil at a given pitch rate profile. Aerodynamic performance of the wing was investigated with anti-icing fluids at different contamination conditions (e.g. snow, ice pellet or light freezing rain, and their combinations). These tests led to “allowances” for ice pellet conditions in place of ice pellet holdover times. Large and vigorous changes in pitching moment have been observed during takeoff stage.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.185 · 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