MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042987275 · doi:10.1080/10020070312331344600

Two-dimensional investigation of forced bubble oscillation under microgravity

2003· article· en· W2042987275 on OpenAlexaff
Ruoyu Hong, Masahiro Kawaji

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Natural Science Materials International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume of fluid methodBubbleMechanicsSurface tensionCompressibilityComputationKinematicsPhysicsOscillation (cell signaling)Classical mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsAlgorithmThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent referential studies of fluid interfaces subjected to small vibration under microgravity conditions are reviewed. An experimental investigation was carried out aboard the American Space Shuttle Discovery. Two-dimensional (2-D) modeling and simulation were conducted to further understand the experimental results. The oscillation of a bubble in fluid under surface tension is governed by the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. The SIMPLEC algorithm was used to solve the partial differential equations on an Eulerian mesh in a 2-D coordinate. Free surfaces were represented with the volume of fluid (VOF) obtained by solving a kinematic equation. Surface tension was modeled via a continuous surface force (CSF) algorithm that ensures robustness and accuracy. A new surface reconstruction scheme, alternative phase integration (API) scheme, was adopted to solve the kinematic equation, and was compared with referential schemes. Numerical computations were conducted to simulate the transient behavior of an oscillating gas bubble in mineral oil under different conditions. The bubble positions and shapes under different external vibrations were obtained numerically. The computed bubble oscillation amplitudes were compared with experimental data.

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)0.001
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Natural Science Materials InternationalSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207