MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404509875 · doi:10.2514/1.j064510

Spontaneous Laminar Separation Bubble Bursting on an Airfoil

2024· article· en· W4404509875 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor E. Toppings, Serhiy Yarusevych

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAirfoilLaminar flowBurstingBubbleSeparation (statistics)MechanicsFlow separationMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsBoundary layer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental investigation was conducted on a NACA 0018 airfoil at near-stall conditions, with stalled, stable laminar-separation bubble, and intermediate flow conditions were considered. Planar particle image velocimetry and surface pressure measurements were used to quantify the flow development at the midspan of the model. For the intermediate conditions, the airfoil is stalled in the time-average sense. However, conditionally averaged velocity field measurements reveal that reattachment of the separated flow and laminar separation bubble formation occur intermittently on the suction surface. The characteristics of the intermittently forming separation bubble and fully separated flow are analyzed based on conditional statistics, revealing variations in the transition process that may underpin the observed low-frequency flow oscillations. The growth rates of the most amplified wavenumbers in the separated shear layer vary with the angle between the separation streamline and the suction surface, leading to earlier transition when the separation angle increases. This change in transition location may play a role in spontaneous changes between fully separated and reattaching flow states.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207