MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Ground Proximity on an Inverted Delta Wing

2020· article· en· W3029040255 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 Aerospace Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelta wingGeologyWingDeltaAerospace engineeringGeodesyPhysicsEngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of ground proximity on the aerodynamics and trailing vortices of an inverted delta wing was investigated experimentally. The ground proximity always led to a lift and drag increase compared to their outside ground-effect counterpart. The largest lift increment occurred in the low-incidence regime but decreased nonlinearly with increasing incidence. A 145% lift increment for a ground distance of 0.5% chord at 3° incidence was obtained. The ground effect also led to an enlarged trailing vortex with increased rotational speed and vortex strength but a lowered peak vorticity. The trailing vortices moved further outboard with reducing ground distance. The results suggest that winged ground-effect vehicles with an inverted delta-wing planform can benefit from the ground effect for a ground distance up to 40% 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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