MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133658412 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0425

Rupture of thin films formed during droplet impact

2009· article· en· W2133658412 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWettingWaxMaterials scienceComposite materialContact angleSubstrate (aquarium)Surface finishSolid surfaceSurface roughnessParaffin waxChemistryChemical physicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rupture of liquid films formed during droplet impact on a dry solid surface was studied experimentally. Water droplets (580±70 μm) were photographed as they hit a solid substrate at high velocities (10–30 m s −1 ). Droplet–substrate wettability was varied over a wide range, from hydrophilic to superhydrophobic, by changing the material of the substrate (glass, Plexiglas, wax and alkylketene dimer). Both smooth and rough wax surfaces were tested. Photographs of impact showed that as the impact velocity increased and the film thickness decreased, films became unstable and ruptured internally through the formation of holes. However, the impact velocity at which rupture occurred was found to first decrease and then increase with the liquid–solid contact angle, with wax showing rupture at all impact velocities tested. A thermodynamic stability analysis combined with a droplet spreading model predicted the rupture behaviour by showing that films would be stable at very small or at very large contact angles, but unstable in between. Film rupture was found to be greatly promoted by surface roughness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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