The Influence of Leading-Edge Geometry on Secondary Losses in a Turbine Cascade at the Design Incidence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents detailed experimental results of the secondary flows from two large-scale, low-speed linear turbine cascades. The aerofoils for the two cascades were designed for the same inlet and outlet conditions and differ mainly in their leading-edge geometries. Detailed flow field measurements were made upstream and downstream of the cascades using three and seven-hole pressure probes and static pressure distributions were measured on the aerofoil surfaces. All measurements were made exclusively at the design incidence. The results from this experiment suggest that the strength of the passage vortex plays an important role in the downstream flow field and loss behavior. It was concluded that the aerofoil loading distribution has a significant influence on the strength of this vortex. In contrast, the leading-edge geometry appears to have only a minor influence on the secondary flow field, at least for the design incidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it