ASSESSMENT OF PARAMETERS FOR DISTINGUISHING DROPLET SHAPE IN A SPRAY FIELD USING IMAGE-BASED TECHNIQUES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantification of droplet shape in a spray field can elucidate several characteristics and mechanisms of the atomization process such as droplet deformation, breakup, and collision. To identify an optimum parameter for accurate quantification of droplet shape using image-based measurement systems, several parameters from different applications are presented in terms of their mathematical definition, calculation procedure, and characteristics. An experimental investigation using a shadowgraph droplet analyzer is also conducted to provide visual evidence of droplet shape in a spray field. The droplets from this data set are classified based on their shape into three categories, namely, spheres, deformed droplets, and ligaments. The capability of the shape parameters in distinguishing between these droplet groups is investigated using a simulation and the collected droplet images. Many of the parameters have insufficient resolution to distinguish between different droplet shapes. A new scaling parameter is applied to each of the parameters to distinguish droplets that are purely convex (spheres and deformed droplets) from those that have concavity (ligaments). From those investigated, an optimum shape parameter is suggested to distinguish the three droplet groups.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it