MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333356901 · doi:10.2514/6.2009-3204

Influence of Upwash Flow Disturbance on Flow-Induced Cavity Resonance

2009· article· en· W2333356901 on OpenAlexaff
Jong Beom Park, Luc Mongeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Flow (mathematics)Resonance (particle physics)MechanicsPhysicsGeologyAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flows grazing over open cavities may cause self-sustained oscillations at the resonance frequencies of the cavity. The excitation mechanism of the self-oscillations is best described in terms of the time-varying circulation of large scale vortical flow structures within the shear layer region of the cavity orifice. In the present study, the influence on coherent span-wise vortical structures of a transverse volume flow created by imposing a periodic upwash through spoiler oscillations at the cavity leading edge was investigated. The relationship be-tween the time-varying vorticity within the orifice region, the oscillating transverse acoustic (solenoidal) flow, and the acoustic response of the cavity was examined. Experiments were conducted using a cavity with an oscillating leading edge spoiler in a low Mach number (M∼0.1) flow. A Helmholtz resonator with orifice length to depth ratio L/d ∼ 1/3 was used. The results confirmed that suppression of the oscillations is achieved when the upwash velocity is both in phase with, and of similar amplitude as, the average acoustic particle velocity of the fluid mass within the orifice. I.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207