MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7018371574

The design of an experimental apparatus for a damped self-pitching wing-in-ground-effect oscillating propulsor

2003· other· en· W7018371574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropulsorOscillation (cell signaling)ThrustPropulsive efficiencyAerodynamicsHeading (navigation)AmplitudeControl theory (sociology)Underwater
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Design of an Experimental Apparatus for a Damped-Self pitching-Wing-in-Ground-Effect Oscillating Propulsor is required to verify the theoretical analysis set forth by Dr. Pengfei Liu in his paper Propulsive Performance of a Twin-Rectangular-Foil Propulsor in a Counter-phase Oscillation (to be published). The prototype will enable us to verify his analysis by changing multiple variables (such as aspect ratios, equilibrium distance between foils, heave amplitude of the foils, angle of attack of the foils, and spring constants) to compare the effects of efficiency and thrust of the propulsor. The prototype will incorporate the motion of the foils to move with a sinusoidal waveform, oscillating in and out with a constant speed and torque. It will also include the capability to allow the foils to pivot on their own axis during their motion, while being damped. The objective of the prototype is to prove that the twin foil anti-acting oscillating propulsors will have an aerodynamic and hydrodynamic advantage for autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), over the single foil configurations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→