MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103014368 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.479

The elastocapillary Landau–Levich problem

2013· article· en· W2103014368 on OpenAlexaff
Harish N. Dixit, G. M. Homsy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Thin Films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface tensionElasticity (physics)Capillary numberPhysicsCapillary actionPower lawMathematical physicsThermodynamicsMechanicsClassical mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the classical Landau–Levich dip-coating problem for the case in which the interface possesses both elasticity and surface tension. The aim of the study is to develop a complete asymptotic theory of the elastocapillary Landau–Levich problem in the limit of small flow speeds. As such, the paper also extends our previous study on purely elastic Landau–Levich flow (Dixit & Homsy J. Fluid Mech., vol. 732, 2013, pp. 5–28) to include the effect of surface tension. The elasticity of the interface is described by the Helfrich model and surface tension is modelled in the usual way. We define an elastocapillary number, $\epsilon $ , which represents the relative strength of elasticity to surface tension. Based on the size of $\epsilon $ , we can define three different regimes of interest. In each of these regimes, we carry out asymptotic expansions in the small capillary (or elasticity) numbers, which represents the balance of viscous forces to surface tension (or elasticity). In the weak elasticity regime, the film thickness is a small correction to the classical Landau–Levich law and can be written as $$\begin{eqnarray*}{\tilde {h} }_{\infty , c} = (0. 9458- 0. 0839~\mathscr{E}){l}_{c} C{a}^{2/ 3} , \quad \epsilon \ll 1,\end{eqnarray*}$$ where ${l}_{c} $ is the capillary length, $Ca$ is the capillary number and $\mathscr{E}= \epsilon / C{a}^{2/ 3} $ . In the elastocapillary regime, the film thickness is a function of $\epsilon $ through the power-law relationship $$\begin{eqnarray*}{\tilde {h} }_{\infty , ec} = {\bar {h} }_{\infty , e} L\hspace{0.167em} f(\epsilon )C{a}^{4/ 7} , \quad \epsilon \sim O(1),\end{eqnarray*}$$ where ${\bar {h} }_{\infty , e} $ is a numerical coefficient obtained in our previous study, $L$ is the elastocapillary length, and $f(\epsilon )$ represents the functional dependence of film thickness on the elastocapillary parameter.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207