MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234661985 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0479

Electrically charged droplet: case study of a simple generator

2014· article· en· W2234661985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Brandenbourger, S. Dorbolo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSurface tensionWettingConductorMechanicsSilicone oilRelaxation (psychology)Electrostatic inductionPlanarGenerator (circuit theory)Simple (philosophy)ConductivityCapillary actionElectrical conductorChemical physicsComposite materialMaterials scienceThermodynamicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the behavior of a simple apparatus that allows charging droplets by induction. We imposed the following constraints: (i) any liquid should be charged (more precisely whatever its surface tension and therefore whatever its wettability, capillary length, etc.); and (ii) the system is to remain as simple as possible. The design of the device results of a compromise regarding both constraints. The device developed is based on a planar capacitor in which the droplets are generated. The influence of the nature of the liquid (i.e., presence of ions in solution, polarity, surface tension, and conductivity) on the charge induced was measured and was found to be independent of the liquid properties (except for the silicone oil). We deduced that, in the considered configuration, fluids behave like a “perfect conductor” as soon as conductive relaxation time is smaller than the droplet ejection time. Under this condition, the charge has the time to move in the droplet to reach the electrostatic regime.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicElectrowetting and Microfluidic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207