Influence of the liner-type treatment on the trailing-edge noise generated by a flat plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several liner-type treatments (three different rectangular grooves covered by three different low porosity wire-mesh screens) on the trailing edge of a flat plate have been investigated in the anechoic wind-tunnel of Université de Sherbrooke. Far-field acoustic directivity measurements have been achieved at Reynolds numbers based on the plate length from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text], yielding radiation maps of all possible liner combinations that are then compared to the reference solid flat plate and to the plate with inserts alone. Noise from the flat plate corresponds to dipolar trailing-edge scattering with an extra shallow hump attributed to the unsteady flow recirculation behind the thick plate. When grooves are added, the latter contribution is amplified and additional cavity noise is observed with several tones and humps. The tones are shown to be resonance between high order modified Rossiter modes and cavity depthwise modes. The hump is a combination of drag dipoles and cavity monopoles from the groove row. The addition of screens always reduces the amplification of the dipolar edge scattering but exhibits very different non-linear responses for the cavity noise. The combination screen with the smallest cells and the insert with the shallowest cavities (corresponding to the same type of treatment applied previously on the Controlled-Diffusion airfoil) yields the lowest levels overall, while the screen with intermediate cell size almost always triggers noise amplification and the screen with a coarse mesh has an intermediate behavior. At high frequencies, the previously reported roughness noise is also observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".