Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ground effect is well known to pilots and aerodynamicists alike. However, the current explanations found in undergraduate (and pilot-focused) textbooks can be inconsistent, often attributing the phenomena to the interaction between tip vortices at the ground. Others invoke the method of images to show that, when the flow is forced to have a straight streamline on the ground, ground pressure must increase. These must prescriptively choose an airfoil circulation. Meanwhile, a simple panel code can be used to show both that the lift on an airfoil in ground effect is significantly two-dimensional, and that the circulation about an airfoil near the ground is not constant. In particular, circulation will be found to grow as altitude decreases, magnifying the ground effect. A simple graphical panel method solver is provided, such that this exercise is accessible to students without the longer task of writing a panel code for themselves. This exercise can provide students with greater insight into the Kutta condition, the method of images, and panel methods themselves. The resulting streamline pattern can also be used to explain the phenomenon to more general audiences, by observing the relationship between lift and streamline curvature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".