MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791412664 · doi:10.1177/0954410017754147

Ground effect on a slender reverse delta wing with anhedral

2018· article· en· W2791412664 on OpenAlexaff
T. Lee, V. Tremblay-Dionne, LS Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelta wingWingVortex liftWing twistDeltaLift-to-drag ratioVortexChord (peer-to-peer)DragWingtip vorticesGround effect (cars)Lift (data mining)PhysicsMechanicsGeologyAngle of attackAerospace engineeringEngineeringAerodynamicsHorseshoe vortexLift coefficientComputer scienceVortex ringReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ground effect on the lift and drag forces and vortices generated by a slender reverse delta wing with different anhedrals was investigated experimentally. The study was inspired by the Lippisch-type RFB X-114 WIG (wing-in-ground effect) craft for which a reverse delta wing planform with anhedral was employed. The results show that, by positioning the trailing edges of the anhedraled reverse delta wing parallel to the ground, the lift and drag coefficients were found to increase persistently with increasing anhedral as the ground was approached (for ground distances within 40% chord). The observed lift augmentation was also accompanied by an ever-increasing rotational speed and total circulation of the vortices generated by the anhedraled wing. The vortices were also found to be displaced more outboard as the ground was approached, which further suggests their little relevance to the lift generation of the anhedraled reverse delta wing.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207