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

Multipoint and Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Shape Optimization

2004· article· en· W2164488670 on OpenAlexafffund
Marian Nemec, David W. Zingg, Thomas H. Pulliam

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations266
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207