MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993192961 · doi:10.1103/physreve.66.021704

Cahn-Hoffman capillarity vector thermodynamics for liquid crystal interfaces

2002· article· en· W1993192961 on OpenAlexaff
Ae-Gyeong Cheong, Alejandro D. Rey

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLiquid Crystal Research Advancements
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific Research
KeywordsLiquid crystalSurface tensionAnisotropyCapillary actionFormalism (music)Condensed matter physicsMaterials sciencePhysicsClassical mechanicsBiaxial nematicOpticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical Cahn-Hoffman capillarity vector formalism for anisotropic interfaces, widely used to analyze capillary and surface patterning processes in metallurgical systems, is applied to nematic liquid crystalline interfaces. The nematic capillarity vector is derived and expressed in terms of nematic surface energies. Expressions for surface tension forces on surface line elements are derived and shown to include the usual tangential forces as well as normal forces driven by surface tension anisotropy. The connections between interfacial rotational effects, surface tension anisotropy, and bending stresses are established. The vector formalism is shown to be a tractable and simple method to analyze capillarity processes in nematic liquid crystals. The application of the formalism to a straight nematic triple line shows that the interface configuration should be such that the projection of the sum of the three capillarity vectors on a plane normal to the contact line vanishes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topicsSame topicLiquid Crystal Research AdvancementsFrench-language works237,207