MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409017631 · doi:10.4271/2025-01-8762

CAATS – Automotive Wind Tunnel Calibrations

2025· article· en· W4409017631 on OpenAlexaff
Katlynn Bringhurst, Scott Best, Vahid Nasr Esfahani, Victor Senft, S. M. Stevenson, Felix Wittmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryWind tunnelMarine engineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind tunnel calibration is necessary for repeatable and reproducible data for all industries interested in their output. Quantities such as wind speed, pressure gradients, static operating conditions, ground effects, force and moment measurements, as well as flow uniformity and angularity are all integral in an automotive wind tunnel’s data quality and can be controlled through appropriate calibration, maintenance, and statistical process control programs. The purpose of this technical paper is to (1) provide a basis of commonality for automotive wind tunnel calibration, (2) help customers and operators to determine the calibration standards best suited for their unique automotive wind tunnel and, (3) complement the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics recommended practice R-093-2003(2018) Calibration of Subsonic and Transonic Wind Tunnels as specifically applied to the automotive industry. This document compiles information from various automotive wind tunnel customers and operators of the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association as part of the Commonization of Automotive Aerodynamic Testing Standards initiative launched by the late Gary Elfstrom.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.015

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in MobilitySame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207