MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401667458 · doi:10.1177/0309524x241254472

Analysis of Froude vortex wake, especially for 2D Giromill Vawt

2024· article· en· W4401667458 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

VenueWind Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsRemotely Operated Platform for Ocean Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeVorticityMechanicsFroude numberVortexPhysicsLeading edgeGeometryFlow (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the singular flow at the actuator disc’s rim joint to the wake tube to aid computing the wake. As the Froude wake vortex sheet issues from the perimeter of a windmill actuator of interference a , its vorticity is argued to build linearly from zero to asymptote to 2 aV . The induction is integrated numerically for a parametric 2D sheet shape to find the flow direction and so slope ta at the perimeter. The vorticity build rate is simultaneously solved so that the axial velocity fraction at the disc averages to 1- a . At a = ⅓ the 2% deviation of the fraction is the rms error in localising the (2D) momentum equation. The extra induction of 0.18 a just before the edge corrects the best local c P to 0.49 versus 16 / 27 , whilst in 3D, swirl will zero the c P in the center, wasting the lower central induction. Worse the leading edge t = 2.22 limits the Giromill’s overall C P based on diameter to 0.49 at a = 0.27.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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