MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309215747 · doi:10.3389/fpace.2022.975158

Review of experimental investigations of wings in ground effect at low Reynolds numbers

2022· article· en· W4309215747 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aerospace Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround effect (cars)Lift-induced dragVortex liftDelta wingWingLift-to-drag ratioDragAerodynamicsReynolds numberChord (peer-to-peer)Wing twistLift (data mining)Wingtip vorticesVortexMechanicsAerospace engineeringAngle of attackPhysicsLift coefficientEngineeringHorseshoe vortexComputer scienceTurbulenceVorticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ground effect-induced large lift increase and lift-induced drag reduction have long been recognized and utilized in the design and construction of wing-in-ground effect (WIG) craft. Various wing planforms have been employed in WIG craft. In this study, the experimental investigations of rectangular wings and delta wings of reverse and regular configurations at low Reynolds numbers are reviewed. For rectangular wings, both chord-dominated and span-dominated ground effects on the aerodynamics, tip vortex, and lift-induced drag are reviewed. For reverse delta wings, in addition to the experimental measurements of the aerodynamics and tip vortex flow at different ground distances, passive flow control utilizing Gurney flap, cropping, and anhedral are reviewed. The impact of ground effect on delta wings is also discussed. Suggestions for future investigations applicable to each wing planform in-ground effect are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.212 · 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