MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874306496 · doi:10.1039/c5sm02037a

Drop impact and capture on a thin flexible fiber

2015· article· en· W1874306496 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Comtet, Bavand Keshavarz, John W. M. Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrop (telecommunication)MechanicsRecoilMaterials scienceDrop impactSpinning drop methodComposite materialFiberPressure dropPhysicsComputer scienceAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a drop impacts a thin fiber, a critical impact speed can be defined, below which the drop is entirely captured by the fiber, and above which the drop pinches-off and fractures. We discuss here the capture dynamics of both inviscid and viscous drops on flexible fibers free to deform following impact. We characterize the impact-induced elongation of the drop thread for both high and low viscosity drops, and show that the capture dynamics depends on the relative magnitudes of the bending time of the fiber and deformation time of the drop. In particular, when these two timescales are comparable, drop capture is less prevalent, since the fiber rebounds when the drop deformation is maximal. Conversely, larger elasticity and slower bending time favor drop capture, as fiber rebound happens only after the drop has started to recoil. Finally, in the limit of highly flexible fibers, drop capture depends solely on the relative speed between the drop and the fiber directly after impact, as is prescribed by the momentum transferred during impact. Because the fiber speed directly after impact decreases with increasing fiber length and fiber mass, our study identifies an optimal fiber length for maximizing the efficiency of droplet capture.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207