MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Morphing and Conventional Wings

2025· article· en· W4411061174 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINCAS BULLETIN · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingAerodynamicsWingAerospace engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringAeronauticsEngineeringComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research investigates the advantages of a morphing versus a hinged flap. The morphing wing model is equipped with a morphing trailing edge, while the conventional wing has a hinged flap system. The aerodynamic and fight dynamics characteristics of both wings are evaluated, and a comparison is drawn to find out how the morphing wing enhances the flight performance in cruise flight conditions in terms of flight range increase. For this purpose, gradient-based aerodynamic optimization is performed to find the ideal configuration of a morphing flap in a cruise flight with the objective of increasing flight range. Finally, the aerodynamic characteristics of optimized morphing and hinged wings are compared, including aerodynamic loads, efficiency, turbulence, and flight range. The findings showed that the morphing wing extended the flight range by 18% in comparison to the hinged wing configuration.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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