MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785627263 · doi:10.1115/1.4039232

Ground Effect on the Vortex Flow and Aerodynamics of a Slender Delta Wing

2018· article· en· W2785627263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingGround effect (cars)Vortex liftWingtip vorticesDelta wingWing twistVortexLift-to-drag ratioStall (fluid mechanics)Wing loadingAngle of attackChord (peer-to-peer)AerodynamicsPhysicsDragWashoutHorseshoe vortexLift-induced dragWing configurationAerospace engineeringMechanicsLift coefficientEngineeringMeteorologyVortex ringComputer scienceReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ground effect on the aerodynamic loading and leading-edge vortex (LEV) flow generated by a slender delta wing was investigated experimentally. Both the lift and drag forces were found to increase with reducing ground distance (up to 50% of the wing chord). The lift increment was also found to be the greatest at low angles of attack α and decreased rapidly with increasing ground distance and α. The ground effect-caused earlier wing stall was also accompanied by a strengthened LEV with an increased rotational speed and size compared to the baseline wing. The smaller the ground distance, the stronger the LEV and the earlier vortex breakdown became. Meanwhile, the vortex trajectory was also found to be located further inboard and above the delta wing in ground effect compared to its baseline-wing counterpart. Finally, for wing-in-ground effect (WIG) craft with delta-wing planform the most effective in-ground-effect flight should be kept within 10% of the wing chord.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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