MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016856529 · doi:10.4208/cicp.181110.090811s

A Constrained Level Set Method for Simulating the Formation of Liquid Bridges

2012· article· en· W2016856529 on OpenAlexafffund
Dongdong He, Huaxiong Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Computational Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsDiscretizationLevel set methodConstraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationFinite element methodLevel set (data structures)Set (abstract data type)Process (computing)Computer scienceLimit (mathematics)Applied mathematicsBridge (graph theory)Function (biology)MathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the dynamic process of liquid bridge formation between two parallel hydrophobic plates with hydrophilic patches, previously studied in [1]. We propose a dynamic Hele-Shaw model to take advantage of the small aspect ratio between the gap width and the plate size. A constrained level set method is applied to solve the model equations numerically, where a global constraint is imposed in the evolution [2] stage together with local constraints in the reinitialization [3] stage of level set function in order to limit numerical mass loss. In contrast to the finite element method used in [2], we use a finite difference method with a 5th order HJWENO scheme for spatial discretization. To illustrate the effectiveness of the constrained method, we have compared the results obtained by the standard level set method with those from the constrained version. Our results show that the constrained level set method produces physically reasonable results while that of the standard method is less reliable. Our numerical results also show that the dynamic nature of the flow plays an important role in the process of liquid bridge formation and criteria based on static energy minimization approach has limited applicability.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Computational PhysicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207