MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387231110 · doi:10.3390/app131910893

Advances in Riblets Design

2023· article· en· W4387231110 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Reza Pakatchian, Joana Rocha, Lucy Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragBoundary layerTurbulenceMarine engineeringAerospace engineeringWind tunnelMechanical engineeringNoise controlAviationEngineeringNoise (video)Computer scienceAcousticsMechanicsNoise reductionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous evolution in nature has created optimum solutions for creature survival that have inspired many innovative engineering designs. Riblet geometries, passive flow control devices, have been studied, which were inspired by the skin of fast-swimming sharks. Turbulent boundary layer research reveals the positive effect of riblets in reducing drag by manipulating turbulent structures. Reducing drag is an important topic for the aviation industry, as it directly relates to fuel savings and reductions in carbon footprints. Aircraft noise represents another significant area of concern. When riblet designs modify turbulent structures, they can also impact pressure sources within the boundary layer, consequently influencing the generation of self-noise. Earlier research studies have demonstrated the favorable outcomes of riblet configurations on the variations in wall pressure, resulting in reduced levels of noise propagation. The current review paper is mainly devoted to the application of riblets in the aviation industry, focusing on studies that are performed in wind tunnels, flight tests, and using numerical techniques. Proving the desired performance of micro-grooves, their method of fabrication and implementation on aircraft surfaces are important topics that are also discussed. In addition, the effect of durability on the performance and required maintenance intervals was previously investigated and is also presented. Finally, recommendations for future activities in the relevant fields of study are provided.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207