Low-Adhesion Surface Evaluation on an Airfoil in the NRC AIWT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The performance of low-adhesion surfaces in a realistic, in-flight icing environment with supercooled liquid droplets is evaluated using a NACA 0018 airfoil in the National Research Council of Canada Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel. This project was completed in collaboration with McGill University, the University of Toronto and the NRC Aerospace Manufacturing Technologies Centre in March 2022. Each collaborator used significantly different methods to produce low-adhesion surface treatments. The goal of the research program was to demonstrate if the low-adhesion surfaces reduced the energy required to de-ice or anti-ice an airfoil in an in-flight icing environment. Each collaborator had been developing their own low-adhesion surfaces, using bench tests in cold rooms and a spin rig in the wind tunnel to evaluate their performance. The most promising surface treatments were selected for testing on the airfoil. The de-icing and anti-icing performance of the low-adhesion surfaces was compared to that of a bare aluminum leading edge using a heated-air piccolo tube ice protection system. Overall, the surface treatments were not found to provide any significant improvement in de-icing or anti-icing performance over a bare aluminum surface. However, the results were very useful in identifying ways to improve the surface treatments for better performance in icing conditions and these lessons may be integrated into future test campaigns.</div></div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".