Icing Wind Tunnel Tests of a Contaminated Supercritical Anti-Iced Wing Section During Simulated Take-Off
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
Icing wind tunnel tests were conducted at the National Research Council Canada’s 3 m x 6 m Propulsion and Icing Wind Tunnel (PIWT) located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The tests were performed on a generic supercritical airfoil representative of those found on regional jet-type aircraft. Tests nominally consisted of coating the wing with anti-icing fluid, applying various levels of contamination (e.g., snow, ice pellets, freezing rain, or combinations thereof), and then simulating a take-off condition in the wind tunnel by accelerating the wind speed and pitching the wing through a desired pitch-profile. The wing performance was evaluated primarily by the measured lift-loss relative to the lift generated by a clean wing, as well as a visual assessment. The experimental results were used as guidance for regulators in determining allowance times for aircraft operating in winter precipitation with ice pellets. Results showed greater sensitivity of this airfoil to contamination effects as compared to previous work on non-supercritical airfoil sections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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