MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052046725 · doi:10.1117/12.842053

Theoretical investigation of capillary flow under gravity with microbead suspension

2010· article· en· W2052046725 on OpenAlexaff
Prashant R. Waghmare, Sushanta K. Mitra

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary actionMicrobead (research)MechanicsFront (military)InletFlow (mathematics)Capillary pressureSuspension (topology)Capillary lengthPressure gradientMaterials sciencePhysicsGeologyChemistryPorous mediumPorosityComposite materialMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, gravity assisted capillary transport of microbead suspension is investigated theoretically. An additional gravitational head from the reservoir which is placed at the top of the capillary is considered as pressure force at the inlet of capillary. The pressure field distribution at the inlet of capillary is deduced to calculate this inlet pressure force. The non-dimensional governing equation is derived by taking into account the surface, viscous and gravity forces which act on the fluid front. Presence of microbeads delays the capillary transport. It is observed from the numerical solution of the governing equation that, not only the aspect ratio of the capillary but the aspect ratio of reservoir also plays a vital role in the flow front transport in the capillary. Although higher fluid level in the reservoir has added advantage towards higher gravitational head, the resistance from reservoir makes the progress of the flow front movement slow at the beginning of the transport. The physical properties of the fluid also play an important role in deciding the progression fluid flow front.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207