MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220817222 · doi:10.3390/drones6030068

An Experimental Apparatus for Icing Tests of Low Altitude Hovering Drones

2022· article· en· W4220817222 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Villeneuve, Abdallah Samad, C. Volat, Mathieu Béland, Maxime Lapalme

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingIcing conditionsEnvironmental scienceRotor (electric)DrizzleDroneAerodynamicsMarine engineeringMeteorologyAerospace engineeringEngineeringPrecipitationMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The icing facilities of the Anti-Icing Materials International Laboratory AMIL have been adapted to reproduce icing conditions on a Bell APT70 drone rotor, typical of small-to-medium UAV models. As part of an extensive icing test campaign, this paper presents the design and preliminary testing of the experimental setup and representative icing conditions calibration in the laboratory’s cold chamber. The drone rotor used has four blades with a diameter of 0.66 m and a maximum tip speed of 208 m/s. For the icing conditions, freezing rain and freezing drizzle were selected. A Liquid Water Content (LWC) calculation methodology for a rotor in hover was developed, and procedures to determine experimental LWC in the facility are presented in this paper. For the test setup, the cold chamber test section was adapted to fit the rotor and to control its ground clearance. Testing was aimed at studying the effect of rotor height h on aerodynamic performance, both with and without icing conditions. Results show no significant effect on the ground effect between h = 2 m and h = 4 m in dry runs, while the icing behavior can be largely influenced for certain conditions by the proximity of the precipitation source, which depend on the height of the rotor in these experiments.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
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

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDronesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207