MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283211464 · doi:10.2514/6.2022-3609

Application of the Morphogenetic Approach to 1<sup>st</sup> AIAA Ice Prediction Workshop Test Cases

2022· article· en· W4283211464 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Forsyth, Krzysztof Szilder

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsAerospace engineeringTrajectoryComputer scienceSurface roughnessSimulationMechanicsMarine engineeringMeteorologyEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-3609.vid This paper presents the application of the morphogenetic approach for numerical modelling of ice accretion to the test cases of the 1st AIAA Ice Prediction Workshop. The morphogenetic approach differs in a number of key ways from traditional icing codes, allowing it to generate distributed and non-uniform features ice shapes as seen experimentally. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and drop trajectory modelling were added prior to the morphogenetic ice accretion code. Making use of the natural surface roughness generated by the morphogenetic approach, a novel technique was implemented to capture the increase in surface roughness with accreted ice, allowing the CFD solution to capture this transient behavior. Time dependency was also simulated for one case, capturing well the growth of the glaze horn features, while other rime cases were successfully simulated using a single time step.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA AVIATION 2022 ForumSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207