MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567377090 · doi:10.1016/j.cja.2016.12.010

Experimental investigation on a cavity-step-actuated supersonic oscillating jet

2016· article· en· W2567377090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaochen Luo, Bo Sun, Xiang'ang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Aeronautics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsSupersonic speedJet (fluid)Wind tunnelNozzleMechanicsSupersonic wind tunnelSchlierenAmplitudePhysicsOpticsAcousticsMaterials scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind tunnel testing is conducted at different back pressures in a vacuum-type wind tunnel for a novel supersonic fluidic oscillator which consists of a two-dimensional Laval nozzle, a rectangular cavity and a backward step, to obtain its characteristics and the conditions for jet oscillating. The experimental results show that periodic asymmetrical flipping of the supersonic jet appears over certain nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) range according to schlieren visualization and pressure fluctuations. The jet flipping appears only when the jet is over expanded. The normalized average amplitude of the lateral pressure difference acting on the roofs of the cavity and the step varies around 0.2 while the periodic flipping appears. The supersonic jet periodic flipping frequencies obtained from the experiments agree well with those from the modified Rossiter mode for cavity-step acoustic resonance, but further investigations are needed to discover the underlying mechanism for the jet flipping.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of AeronauticsSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207