Far-Field Drag Decomposition Applied to the Drag Prediction Workshop 5 Cases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A far-field drag prediction and decomposition method has been applied to the results of the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop 5 held in Louisiana during the summer of 2012. The method has two principal advantages: it allows the removal of spurious drag inherent to computational fluid dynamics solutions, and it allows the decomposition of drag into viscous, wave, and induced physical drag components. This research shows that accurate drag coefficients can be predicted on coarse grids when the spurious drag is extracted with the far-field method and that these results are closer to experimental values than drag coefficients computed on finer meshes when spurious drag is not extracted. The research also investigated the reasons behind the lift and drag losses found by some participants in the workshop. It is shown that the lift loss is caused by the boundary-layer separation at the wing root, inducing a reduction of 20% of the shock wave drag and a significant change in the wing loading. The initiation of buffet is also analyzed. The study shows that mesh refinement is critical to capture the physical effects of the flow, such as its separation, and provides an explanation of the discrepancies in results observed at the Drag Prediction Workshop 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it