MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133507058

Modeling capabilities on the formation of contrails in a commercial CFD code

2019· article· en· W3133507058 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sébastien Cantin, François Morency, François Garnier

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsRadiative transferContext (archaeology)Computational fluid dynamicsMeteorologyMechanicsEnvironmental scienceAerospace engineeringForcing (mathematics)TurbulenceFlow (mathematics)PhysicsGeologyAtmospheric sciencesEngineeringOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aircraft contrails may contribute to the global radiative forcing. In this context, the
\ninvestigation of contrail formation in the near field of an aircraft engine may be helpful
\nin developing numerical models to reduce undesirable impacts. This study is based on
\nthree-dimensional CFD simulations with an ice microphysics module in order to
\ninvestigate the ice particles formation and evolution behind a complex geometry of an
\naircraft engine involving a bypass and a core flow. The Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged
\nNavier-Stokes equations are used to model the flow. Particles emitted from the engine
\nare tracked with a Lagrangian approach accounting for ice particles growth. The
\nsimulations were carried out under realistic operation conditions for two aircraft
\nengines: the CFM56-3 and the LEAP-1A, a recent one. The model can differentiate the
\nformation threshold of ice particles between both engines (26 % earlier in term of
\ndistance for the LEAP-1A). Then, larger mean ice particles are found at the end of the
\nsimulation for the LEAP-1A (20 % larger). Finally, the results show that the optical
\ndepth is higher for the CFM56-3 (360 % higher).

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 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)Same topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207