Slip and coupling phenomena at the liquid–solid interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The no-slip boundary condition, as a precept of interfacial fluid dynamics, constitutes a central dogma amongst some physicists and engineers. However, over the past decade, it has become a topic of some controversy because of the proliferation of theoretical and experimental evidence for the existence of slip, especially at micro- and nanoscopic scales. In this review, we consider the models, techniques, and results, both experimental and by simulation, concerning interfacial slip and mechanical coupling at solid–liquid (outer slip), and adsorbate–substrate (inner slip) interfaces. Outer slip is a viscous process, normally described by a planar discontinuity between the upper layer of surface particles and the adjacent liquid layer. A number of factors can lead to slip, including surface–liquid affinity, high shear rates, surface roughness, and the elasticity of any intermediary film layer. Inner slip can be a viscoelastic process, and is related to adhesion and friction. Although it has received little attention, it will be important when dealing with self-assembled monolayers and more complex biosensor applications. Finally, we consider stochastic coupling as an aspect of the concept of slip.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".