MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409614304 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000012380

Extensions to Maskell’s theory for blockage effects on bluff bodies in a closed wind tunnel

2001· article· en· W2409614304 on OpenAlexaff
J. E. Hackett, Kevin Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind tunnelStall (fluid mechanics)BluffLift (data mining)DragPhysicsLift-to-drag ratioMeteorologyMechanicsMarine engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extensions to Maskell’s original correction method, developed over several years, are consolidated and designated ‘Maskell III’. The procedures were applied to dedicated tests on a family of flat-plate wing models in a small, low-speed wind tunnel at NRC. Test conditions included angles of attack from -10° to 110° and models of up to 16% of tunnel area. Off-centre tests were included with model-to-wall distances down to 0.72 chords. Corrected lift and drag data correlated well between models of different sizes and at different offsets from the tunnel centreline. Comparisons are made with corrections using the pressure-signature and two-variable methods, emphasising post-stall conditions. These showed that the ‘Maskell III’ procedures, which require minimal input, correlated as well as the other methods for most model sizes and positions in the tunnel.

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)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207