MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185939239 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-2647

SLD Instrumentation in Icing Wind Tunnels – Investigation Overview

2021· article· en· W3185939239 on OpenAlexaff
Judith F. Van Zante, J. W. Strapp, Biagio Esposito, David Orchard, Alexei Korolev, Thomas Ratvasky, James T. Riley

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingIcing conditionsWind tunnelSizingEnvironmental scienceNACA airfoilHard rimeInstrumentation (computer programming)Liquid water contentSlushMeteorologyMarine engineeringRemote sensingComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringCloud computingGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-2647.vid A collaborative effort to better understand cloud characterization probes in Supercooled Large Drop (SLD) conditions, as well the ability to simulate these conditions in several icing wind tunnels, was undertaken by NASA, NRCC, CIRA, ECCC, FAA and Met Analytics, Inc. Both drop sizing and liquid water content, LWC, were measured with various probes using current to emerging technologies. To ensure the best possible data quality from the newest probes, the probe manufacturers, SEA, Inc. and Artium, Inc. were invited to support testing and data analysis efforts. A common set of probes was identified to test in each of the three participating facilities: NRCC’s Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel, NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel and CIRA’s Icing Wind Tunnel. From the common set of probes, a subset were identified to use for comparison across the three facilities. These were the CDP-2 and 2D-S for drop sizing, and the Multi-wire for LWC. The LWC value was also checked by measuring the ice accretion thickness under hard rime conditions on a NACA-0012 airfoil. A common test matrix with sweeps in both LWC and median volume diameter, MVD, was developed. Each facility achieved these conditions as determined by their own calibration. The MVD ranged from 20 to at least 200 um, and LWC ranged from 0.5 to 3 g/m3. The comparison probes tested at common conditions in each facility were intended to allow for a direct comparison, and check of potential facility bias.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUMSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207