MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406929158 · doi:10.1121/10.0034868

Similitude laws for the vibroacoustic response of fluid-loaded plates under a turbulent boundary layer excitation

2025· article· en· W4406929158 on OpenAlexafffund
Xavier Plouseau-Guédé, Alain Berry, Laurent Maxit, Valentin Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCentre Lyonnais d'Acoustique, Université de LyonIndian National Science AcademyUniversité de LyonNaval GroupAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsSimilitudeBoundary layerTurbulenceMechanicsScalingWork (physics)VibrationBoundary (topology)Metric (unit)Acoustic radiationPhysicsClassical mechanicsMathematicsAcousticsRadiationMathematical analysisGeometryEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory of similitudes provides simple laws by which the response of one system (usually of small size) can be used to predict the response of another system (usually larger). This paper establishes the exact conditions and laws of similitude for the vibrations and acoustic radiation of a panel immersed in a heavy fluid and excited by a turbulent boundary layer. Previous work on vibroacoustic similitude had not considered the problem of a panel radiating in heavy fluid, for which the radiation impedance of the structure must be scaled. The scaling parameters studied here are the dimensions and thickness of the structure, its material properties, the properties of the acoustic domain, and the convective velocity of the turbulent boundary layer. The corresponding scaling laws are derived analytically and verified numerically; in particular, material properties of scaled panels can be determined with simple geometrical constructions on the diagram of Ashby.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207