MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402686303 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-3680

Contribution to IPW2 by Studying Single and Multi-Layer Icing in 2D, 2.5D and 3D

2024· article· en· W4402686303 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maxime Blanchet, Mohamad Karim Zayni, Éric Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLayer (electronics)Materials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the three ice accretion cases from the 2nd AIAA Ice Prediction Workshop carried out by Polytechnique Montreal, using the in-house ice accretion software, CHAMPS (CHApel MultiPhysics Software). The simulations employ minimally a 2D multilayer approach for all the cases. Moreover, multilayer 2.5D and single-layer 3D simulations are performed for the 3D cases. Globally, the numerically obtained ice shapes satisfactorily reproduce the experimental ice volume and limits. The incorporation of 2.5D simulations offers a favorable balance between computational complexity and accuracy. These results demonstrate a good agreement with 3D ice shapes and an improvement over the 2D results. A stochastic ice accretion model, firstly integrated without updating flow, droplet trajectories, and surface thermodynamic exchanges, exhibits satisfying predictive capabilities by capturing the lower form of the 2D rimed ice case. The experimental variability is also captured by superimposing results from repeated runs. Then, preliminary results with a laminar multilayer approach for the stochastic model are shown for the last test case, well capturing the global aspect of the rimed ice shape.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207