MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796855526 · doi:10.3390/jmse6020050

Experimental Investigation of Propeller Wake Velocity Field to Determine the Major Factors Affecting Propeller Wake Wash

2018· article· en· W2796855526 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Ruhul Amin, Bruce Colbourne, Brian Veitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicShip Hydrodynamics and Maneuverability
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Bureau of Shipping
KeywordsWakePropellerMechanicsAdvance ratioPhysicsJet (fluid)Field (mathematics)Marine engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBlade pitchMathematicsRotor (electric)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The propeller jet from a ship has a significant component directed upwards towards the free surface of the water, which can be used for ice management. This paper describes a comprehensive laboratory experiment where the operational factors affecting a propeller wake velocity field were investigated. The experiment was conducted using a steady wake field to investigate the characteristics of the axial velocity of the fluid in the wake and the corresponding variability downstream of the propeller. The axial velocities and the variability recorded were time-averaged. Propeller rotational speed was found to be the most significant factor, followed by propeller inclination. The experimental results also provide some idea about the change of the patterns of the mean axial velocity distribution against the factors considered for the test throughout the effective wake field, as well as the relationships to predict the axial velocity for known factors.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicShip Hydrodynamics and ManeuverabilityFrench-language works237,207