MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392383102 · doi:10.32920/25336306.v1

Rib Design for a Flexible Trailing Edge of Aircraft

2024· preprint· en· W4392383102 on OpenAlexaff
Rushank Trivedi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingTrailing edgeSoftwareWingFinite element methodCADComputer scienceEngineeringSection (typography)Engineering drawingStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The work in this report provides a detailed design and mechanical simulation rib design in flexible trailing edge/morphing wing aircraft. Initially the report initially a brief background knowledge on flexible trailing edge and how to validate design and design changes through simulation software. The report is then divided into two main components that were undertaken during this project. The first part encompasses a design of a rectangular beam in the morphing section. This was achieved by conceptualizing two designs which can be distinguished by their various types of supports. The second part entailed a design of internal structure for the morphing wing. A total of six designs in addition to the initial design were conceptualized which included variations of number of circular structures ranging from two to 4 and variations in locations of these structures. All these designs were 3-D modeled in CATIA-V5 software and were verified by performing ANSYS Finite Element analysis software on these respective 3-D CAD models. The report then provides a detailed comparison between these designs and ultimately provides final design for each component. Finally, the report provides few brief concepts on how this project can be applied and improved in future.</p>

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207