Design Competition Report Cougar Shadow Human Powered Vehicle Team Report Prepared by:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Washington State University Vancouver entered the 2007 HPVC with a reverse three wheel recumbent design. This vehicle had some good features. The 2008 team decided to make several improvements to the existing vehicle; some of which are: a new carbon-fiber fairing, simplified rear suspension, stronger front suspension, highly adjustable pedal position, and larger chain ring. The decisions to implement these changes were arrived at through the use of weighted rating matrices, expert advice from bicycle professionals, and mathematical analysis. Some of the initial choices were later changed due to further introspection following consul-tation with experienced advisers. In particular, the original plan to create a new frame with chrome moly tubing was eliminated when it was obvious that the manufacturability was difficult and our time would be better spent modifying the existing aluminum frame. Conceptual designs were made using SolidWorks parametric modeling software. COSMOS FloWorks was used to assess the aero-dynamic characteristics of our fairing design. Finite Element Analysis of the frame and suspension components was carried out with COSMOS and in some cases with ANSYS. Stress testing with an Instron machine was used to verify the critical components and to check the strength of our welds. Two iterations of our fairing design were also tested in a water tunnel to visualize the fluid flow in order to reduce the turbulence and thereby decreasing the drag. The resulting vehicle performance is expected to be a significant improvement over the existing design. Construction is currently under way and tests of the final product will prove our design. We will make modifications to correct any problems encountered and
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.238 | 0.128 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".