Aeroacoustic Measurements from the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Rotorprop Test (AART) in the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) designs typically have aerodynamic configurations that result in complex aerodynamic and acoustic conditions, such as wing and propeller interaction. In response, the Aerodynamic and Acoustic Rotorprop Test (AART) Program was implemented, a primary objective of which was to determine the aerodynamics and acoustics related to an auxiliary propulsor mounted behind an isolated wing in the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC) 40-by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel. Three configurations (no wing, half wing, and full wing) were tested, with conditions including variation of the propeller speed, wind tunnel Mach number, and yaw. The acoustic setup, processing, and analysis are discussed along with the known issues for this complex data set. The interaction of upstream bodies and the resulting substantial increase in acoustic emissions are detailed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".