Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations offer a feasible solution to resolving the behavior of ship airwake behavior in the interest of flight operations near a moving ship as opposed to large full scale experimental methods. Wind tunnel data has been collected for several wind-over-deck (WOD) conditions using the simple frigate shape (SFS2) conducted by the National Research Council of Canada. In order to test the ability of the CFD code REX to accurately simulate these conditions and provide meaningful data a comprehensive validation study was conducted. Wind tunnel data is provided for both a headwind and Green 45° scenario. Both were recreated and simulated using REX. Comparison of averaged flow velocities and turbulence intensities in the area of the ship’s flight deck show strong agreement with the provided wind tunnel data. Differences in velocity magnitude and turbulence intensity were seen specifically in the areas of high turbulence but overall the flow behavior modeled using REX agrees with the trends seen in the wind tunnel data. The conclusion is thus drawn that REX can be used to accurately model the airwake behavior around a ship geometry under varying flow conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".