Comparative study between continuum and atomistic approaches of liquid flow through a finite length cylindrical nanopore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steady state pressure driven flow of liquid argon through a finite length cylindrical nanopore was investigated numerically by classical Navier-Stokes (NS) hydrodynamic models and nonequilibrium molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. In both approaches, the nanopore was nominally 2.2 nm in diameter and 6 nm long. For the MD simulations, the intermolecular properties of the walls were specified independently from the liquid. Comparisons between the approaches were made in terms of the gross feature of total flow rate through the nanopore, as well as the more refined considerations of the spatial distributions of pressure, density, and velocity. The results showed that for the NS equations to predict the same trends in total flow rate with increasing pressure difference as the MD simulation, submodels for variations in density and viscosity with pressure are needed to be included. The classical NS boundary conditions quantitatively agreed with the flow rate predictions from MD simulations only under the condition of having a neutral-like solid-liquid interaction. Under these conditions, the NS and MD models also agreed well in streamwise distributions of pressure, density, and velocity, but not in the radial direction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".