MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319712011 · doi:10.2514/6.2005-5036

Experimental Study on Micro-Droplets of Molten Wax Impacting on Solid Surfaces

2005· article· en· W2319712011 on OpenAlexafffund
Ri Li, Nasser Ashgriz, S. Chandra

Bibliographic record

Venue35th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaXerox Foundation
KeywordsInkwellWaxMaterials scienceSolid surfaceSubstrate (aquarium)Contact angleDeposition (geology)SuperheatingComposite materialParaffin waxSurface (topology)ThermalNanotechnologyChemistryThermodynamicsGeometryChemical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

*† ‡ In the indirect ink-jetting printer, the deposition of ink droplets on solid surfaces is a crucial step in the printing process. This paper studies the interaction between ink droplets and solid surfaces by experimentally simulating different printing conditions. When a superheated ink droplet of 39 µm in diameter impacts on a sub-cooled solid surface, it spreads and solidifies, forming a dot on the solid surface. The equilibrium shape of the dot is determined by its flow history and thermal history during impact. Three parameters are varied to change the experimental condition, namely the substrate temperature, the type of substrate surface and the distance between the substrate surface and the printhead. The dimensional characteristics of the dot are characterized measuring the basal diameter, height and the apparent contact angle. The experimental results are presented, and the explanations are provided.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue35th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and ExhibitSame topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207