MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111433827

Wind tunnel testing of an inclined aeroelastic cable model - Pressure and motion characteristics, Part II

2009· article· en· W7111433827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBristol Research (University of Bristol) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityVibrationWind tunnelDragReynolds numberFlow (mathematics)Forcing (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with dry cable vibrations in the critical Reynolds number range and the associated wind forcing mechanism. Cable vibrations at high reduced velocities were investigated in the third phase of the experimental campaign at the National Research Council Canada (NRC), in collaboration with the University of Bristol and the University of Stavanger. The study focused on the aeroelastic behaviour of a cable model inclined to the approaching flow at f =60º, 77º and 90º. Both dynamic cable response and surface pressures were recorded simultaneously, in an attempt to bridge the gap between separate data on i) cable aeroelastic response and ii) surface pressures on a fixed cable model, available from two previous test campaigns, see e.g. Cheng et al. (2003) and Larose et al. (2003). This paper presents the main characteristics of the cable vibrations as well as surface pressures throughout the drag crisis range. Further, the interrelation between the simultaneously recorded load and response data is examined, in order to scrutinize the conditions present at the onset of the large response episodes.

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 score0.004

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBristol Research (University of Bristol)Same topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207