MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380589972 · doi:10.4271/2023-01-1424

Liquid Water Content Instrumentation Study at the NRC AIWT

2023· article· en· W4380589972 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Clark, David Orchard

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid water contentIcingWind tunnelInstrumentation (computer programming)CylinderDrop (telecommunication)AerodynamicsCalibrationWheatstone bridgeWind speedWater contentEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyMaterials scienceRemote sensingMechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringElectrical engineeringComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Research Council Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel liquid water content calibrations have historically relied on a 2.4 mm diameter rotating cylinder for drop sizes up to 50 μm and a 6.2 mm diameter rotating cylinder for drop sizes from 50 μm to 200 μm. This study compares the facility calibration, derived from rotating cylinder measurements, to water content measurements from the Science Engineering Associates Multi-Element Probe and the National Research Council Compact Iso-Kinetic Probe over a range of airspeeds and drop sizes. The data show where the rotating cylinder measurements may start to underestimate the liquid water content (LWC), possibly due to splashing at higher airspeeds and drop sizes. The data also show that the LWC read by the Multi-Element Probe is higher than that provided by the rotating cylinders, and the Compact Iso-Kinetic Probe (CIKP) reads higher than both other methods. These trends are consistent with instrumentation comparison data from other icing wind tunnels. The study examines the effects of aerodynamic blockage on the probe measurements and the effects of placing the CIKP reference humidity sensor at different positions relative to the icing cloud. Overall, the data do not support changing the AIWT LWC calibration method from the rotating cylinder at this time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in MobilitySame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207