Thermocapillary convection with moving contact points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marangoni convection in a cavity subject to two types of heating, i.e., heating through the sidewalls and heating by a point source from above, has been investigated. The assumed wetting conditions permit motion of the interface along the sidewalls subject to a constant contact angle constraint. The analysis considers complete interface deformation effects. The results determined for large Biot and zero Marangoni numbers show the existence of limit points beyond which steady, continuous interface cannot exist. The limit points define the maximum capillary number Ca and the maximum cavity length L permitted. The permitted values of the Reynolds number may be bounded from below and from above depending on the values of other transport parameters and on the form of the external heating. Interface approaching bottom of the cavity leading, most likely, to the formation of a dry spot, represents the main factor limiting the existence of steady convection. The topology of the flow field is similar to the case when the wetting conditions result in the fixed location of the contact points while the topology of the interface is qualitatively different. The change of the contact conditions from the fixed contact points to the fixed contact angles results in a significant reduction of the range of parameters that guarantee the existence of a continuous interface.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".