MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980226169 · doi:10.1139/p04-061

Nonlinear instability of two dielectric viscoelastic fluids

2004· article· en· W1980226169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Galal M. Moatimid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNonlinear systemViscoelasticityInstabilityBoundary value problemClassical mechanicsEquations of motionDielectricElectric fieldMathematical analysisMechanicsThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A weakly nonlinear interfacial wave propagating between two dielectric fluids and influenced by an oblique electric field is studied. The analysis considers the surface tension and viscoelastic effects. Due to the presence of streaming and viscoelasticity, a mathematical simplification is considered. The viscoelastic contribution is demonstrated through the boundary conditions. Therefore, the equations of motion are solved in the absence of the viscoelastic effects. The solutions of the linearized equations of motion under the nonlinear boundary conditions lead to a nonlinear characteristic equation governing the surface evolution. This equation is accomplished by utilizing cubic nonlinearity. Taylor theory is adopted to expand the characteristic nonlinear equation in the light of the multiple-scales technique. The perturbation analysis produces two levels of the solvability conditions, which are used to construct the Ginzburg–Landau equation. Stability criteria are discussed both theoretically and computationally in which stability diagrams are obtained. Under appropriate data choices, we can recover some reported works as limiting cases. The effects of the orientation of the electric fields on the stability configuration in linear as well as nonlinear approaches are discussed. PACS Nos.: 47.65.+a, 47.20.–k, 47.50.+d

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207