MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386305663 · doi:10.1088/1748-3190/acf540

The role of leading-edge serrations in controlling the flow over owls’ wing

2023· article· en· W4386305663 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

VenueBioinspiration & Biomimetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingFlow (mathematics)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionLeading edgeStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the effects of leading-edge serrations on the flow dynamics developed over an owl wing model. Owls are predatory birds. Most owl species are nocturnal, with some active during the day. The nocturnal ones feature stealth capabilities that are partially attributed to their wing microfeatures. One of these microfeatures is small rigid combs (i.e. serrations) aligned at an angle with respect to the incoming flow located at the wings' leading-edge region of the primaries. These serrations are essentially passive flow control devices that enhance some of the owls' flight characteristics, such as aeroacoustics and, potentially, aerodynamics. We performed a comparative study between serrated and non-serrated owl wing models and investigated how the boundary layer over these wings changes in the presence of serrations over a range of angles of attack. Using particle image velocimetry, we measured the mean and turbulent flow characteristics and analyzed the flow patterns within the boundary layer region. Our experimental study suggests that leading-edge serrations modify the boundary layer over the wing at all angles of attack, but not in a similar manner. At low angles of attack (<20°), the serrations amplified the turbulence activity over the wing planform without causing any significant change in the mean flow. At 20° angle of attack, the serrations act to suppress existing turbulence conditions, presumably by causing an earlier separation closer to the leading-edge region, thus enabling the flow to reattach prior to shedding downstream into the wake. Following the pressure Hessian equation, turbulence suppression reduces the pressure fluctuations gradients. This reduction over the wing would weaken, to some extent, the scattering of aerodynamic noise in the near wake region.

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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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