MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164488670 · doi:10.2514/1.10415

Multipoint and Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Shape Optimization

2004· article· en· W2164488670 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

VenueAIAA Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPratt and Whitney Canada
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsMathematical optimizationLift (data mining)MathematicsComputationApplied mathematicsPenalty methodComputer scienceAlgorithmEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Newton‐Krylov algorithm is presented for the aerodynamic optimization of singleand multi-element airfoil configurations. The flow is governed by the compressible Navier‐Stokes equations in conjunction with a one-equation turbulence model. The preconditioned generalized minimum residual method is applied to solve the discreteadjoint equation, leading to a fast computation of accurate objective function gradients. Optimization constraints are enforced through a penalty formulation, and the resulting unconstrained problem is solved via a quasi-Newton method. Design examples include lift-enhancement and multi-point lift-constrained drag minimization problems. Furthermore, the new algorithm is used to compute a Pareto front for a multi-objective problem, and the results are validated using a genetic algorithm. Overall, the new algorithm provides an ecient and robust approach for addressing the issues of complex aerodynamic

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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