MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070555505

Phased microphone array measurements of a bombardier aircraft scaled model

2013· article· en· W7070555505 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrophone arrayBeamformingMicrophoneCalibrationNoise (video)Phased arrayDirectivityNoise-canceling microphoneAeroacoustics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerodynamic testing of high fidelity models is a standard practice for aircraft manufacturers. With the development of phased microphone array technology, aeroacoustics can become an integral part of the design process of an airplane. In 2012, the National Research Council Canada and Bombardier Aerospace carried out a collaborative research program focusing on measuring the sound generated by a high-fidelity aerodynamic wind tunnel model. The noise of various configurations was measured at combinations of three wind speeds and three microphone array polar orientations above the model. Several calibration reference noise waveforms were explored to determine the most effective in a highly reverberant hard-walled test section. The calibration data analysis showed that meaningful beamform maps above 30kHz could be generated when a pulsed sine wave was applied as the reference noise signal in the calibration process. For the model configurations tested, slat noise dominated the sound maps processed using either conventional beamforming or CLEAN-PSF. The wing flap edge noise as well as the contributions from the main gear were also discernible. For each configuration, one data point was taken while the microphone array was rotating instead of stationary. The computationally intense post-processing procedure for these data provided a detailed map of the sources due to reduced spatial aliasing. The sound levels measured with the rotating array were at a slightly lower magnitude owing to the averaging of the source over its full directivity pattern. Future work includes implementing a calibration procedure for the rotating array and improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the signals so that shorter microphone time histories can be used to extract directivity information from the datasets of the rotating array.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207