MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W44829727

NASA Langley Research Center's Contributions to International Active Buffeting Alleviation Programs

2000· article· en· W44829727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert W. Moses

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityAirframeAerospaceAeronauticsWind tunnelResearch centerEngineeringAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringAerodynamicsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Buffeting is an aeroelastic phenomenon which plagues high performance aircraft, especially those with twin vertical tails like the F/A-18, at high angles of attack. This buffeting is a concern from fatigue and inspection points of view. By means of wind-tunnel and flight tests, this phenomenon is well studied to the point that buffet loads can be estimated and fatigue life can be increased by structural enhancements to the airframe. In more recent years, buffeting alleviation through active control of smart materials has been highly researched in wind-tunnel proof-of-concept demonstrations and full-scale ground tests using the F/A-18 as a test bed. Because the F/A-18 resides in fleets outside as well as inside the United States, these tests have evolved into international collaborative research activities with Australia and Canada, coordinated by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and conducted under the auspices of The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP). With the recent successes and advances in smart materials, the main focus of these buffeting alleviation tests has also evolved to a new level: utilize the F/A-18 as a prototype - to mature smart materials for suppressing vibrations of aerospace structures. The role of the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) in these programs is presented.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207