Aerodynamic Analysis of a Bioinspired Multilayer Flexible Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, aerodynamic characterization and performance analysis of a bioinspired multilayer flexible wing are discussed. Our membrane wing that consists of two separate layers can achieve better performance for applications utilizing flapping wing locomotion. This novel wing has two distinct features, the first, a passive shape deformation that is dependent on the direction of the aerodynamic loading on the wing surface, thus can reduce the negative lift of the upstroking wing without a complex mechanism required for active pitching. The other feature is the vortex trap mechanism realized by the separation of the layers at upstroke that results in a large scale vortex above the upstroking wing. This vortex can also generate additional lift by preserving a low pressure core. These features are inspired by the active wing shape control of birds, as well as an unsteady aerodynamic mechanism called clap and fling exhibited by several flying insect species. Such passive shape control on membrane wings could be utilized on micro air vehicles featuring a simple flapping mechanism design to achieve robustness and light weight.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".