MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929287193 · doi:10.4224/40003273

Characterization of NRC Convair-580 hot-wire probes performance using NRC AIWT

2023· report· en· W6929287193 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFlow Experience in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingIce crystalsWind tunnelLiquid water contentWater contentDetectorAltitude (triangle)Liquid water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This laboratory technical report presents the results of bulk cloud water content measurements taken with the Ice Crystal Detector and Nevzorov probes at the Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel of NRC. The Nevzorov and Ice Crystal Detector are aircraft-mounted hot-wire probes designed to find the bulk water content of clouds and are being used as the NRC Convair 580 aircraft core sensors. These two probes were tested in the NRC Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel facility in late 2020 and early 2021 in order to characterize their responsiveness to liquid water in a controlled environment. The probes were tested at a variety of liquid water content set points, particle median volume diameter, true air speed, pressure, and temperature. Measurements of the liquid water content and total water content were made in a setting of pure liquid conditions, and the probes measurements were compared to wind tunnel nominal values. The calculation of dry power loss for the Ice Crystal Detector was improved using a modified fit in the clear air. Icing was observed on both Nevzorov reference wires, creating a false signal and unreliable data, leading to the conclusion that the dry power loss should be calculated using the ambient parameters similar to how it is done for the Ice Crystal Detector.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFlow Experience in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207