MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168065962 · doi:10.1109/tepm.2009.2020515

Modeling of the Fluid Volume Transferred in Contact Dispensing Processes

2009· article· en· W2168065962 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)Surface tensionMechanicsVolume of fluid methodLaplace's equationMaterials scienceFluid dynamicsProcess (computing)Control volumeMechanical engineeringBoundary value problemComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsThermodynamicsFlow (mathematics)PhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the contact dispensing process, the contact of the fluid with the target board is essentially needed in order to transfer a certain volume of fluid to the board. Due to the action of surface tension, part of the fluid extruded from the needle hangs on the needle after the process, and this causes the difference between the fluid volume extruded and the one transferred to the board. This difference is usually ignored in the literature, yet is critical to the precise process control. In this paper, a model to represent the difference is developed based on the Young-Laplace capillarity equation as well as the boundary conditions established for this particular problem. Experiments and simulations were carried out to verify the model effectiveness as well as to investigate the influence of the fluid volume extruded from the needle, the needle size, and the initial height of the needle on the fluid volume transferred in the contact dispensing process.

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 score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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