MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402637973 · doi:10.4050/f-0073-2017-12187

Wind Tunnel Testing for the SB>1 Defiant Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator

2017· article· en· W4402637973 on OpenAlexaff
Peter F. Lorber, Patrick Bowles, Eric P. Fox, Zhe Wang, Benjamin Hein, Bryan Mayrides

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind tunnelJoint (building)Computer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind tunnel tests have been conducted to support development of the SB>1 DEFIANT™ Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator. The objective is to provide data to validate and enhance the aerodynamic performance and flight dynamics models and to improve understanding of the aerodynamics of X2 TECHNOLOGY™ configurations. The first model was a 1/11 scale airframe with a powered propeller that was tested in the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC) Pilot Wind Tunnel (PWT) in 2013-2014. The second model was a 1/5 scale airframe with a powered coaxial main rotor that was tested at the U.S. Air Force National Full Scale Aerodynamic Complex (NFAC) in 2016. This model could also be tested with a powered propeller. Measurements included forces and moments on the various components, as well as fuselage, empennage, and blade surface pressures. For the 1/11 model, fuselage-induced flow fields at the propeller and empennage locations were also measured. Application of the experimental results to the State Space GenHel flight dynamics model is described.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207