MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290907376 · doi:10.1063/1.4942446

Modeling the vertical motion of drops bouncing on a bounded fluid reservoir

2016· article· en· W2290907376 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPhysicsInviscid flowMechanicsDrop (telecommunication)Bounded functionClassical mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a first-principles model of drops bouncing on a liquid reservoir. We consider a nearly inviscid liquid reservoir and track the waves that develop in a bounded domain. Bouncing drops are modeled as vertical linear springs. We obtain an expression for the contact force between drop and liquid surface and a model where the only adjustable parameter is an effective viscosity used to describe the waves on the reservoir’s surface. With no adjustable parameters associated to the drop, we recover experimental bouncing times and restitution coefficients. We use our model to describe the effect of the Bond, Ohnesorge, and Weber numbers on drops bouncing on a stationary reservoir. We also use our model to describe drops bouncing on an oscillated reservoir, describing various bouncing modes and a walking threshold.

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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.204 · 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