MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998515500 · doi:10.1103/physreve.83.061605

Global stabilities, selection of steady cellular growth, and origin of side branches in directional solidification

2011· article· en· W1998515500 on OpenAlexaff
Jianjun Xu, Yongqiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityBranching (polymer chemistry)LimitingAnisotropyTraveling waveMechanicsViscous fingeringPattern formationPhysicsMaterials scienceMathematicsOpticsMathematical analysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper investigates the global instability mechanisms of arrayed-cellular growth with asymptotic approach. We find that the system of directional solidification involves two types of global instability mechanisms: the low-frequency instability and the global oscillatory instability, which are profoundly similar to that found in the system of viscous fingering and free dendritic growth. Based on these global instabilities, the neutral mode selection principle for the limiting state of growth is proposed; the origin and essence of side branching on the interface are elucidated with the so-called global trapped wave mechanism, which involves the interfacial wave reflection and amplification along the interface. It is demonstrated that side branching is self-sustaining and can persist without continuously applying the external noise; the effect of the anisotropy of interfacial energy is not essential for the selection of steady cellular growth and for the origin and formation of side branching at the interface. The comparisons of theoretical results are made with the most recent experimental works and the numerical simulations which show very good quantitative agreement.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207