Surface Thermodynamic Analysis of Fluid Confined in a Cone and Comparison with the Sphere–Plate and Plate–Plate Geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of pure fluid confined in a cone is investigated using thermodynamic stability analysis. Four situations are explained on the basis of the initial confined phase (liquid/vapor) and its pressure (above/below the saturation pressure). Thermodynamic stability analysis (a plot of the free energy of the system versus the size of the new potential phase) reveals whether the phase transition is possible and, if so, the number and type (unstable/metastable/stable) of equilibrium states in each of these situations. Moreover we investigated the effect of the equilibrium contact angle and the cone angle (equivalent to the confinement's surface separation distance) on the free energy (potential equilibrium states). The results are then compared to our previous study of pure fluid confined in the gap between a sphere and a flat plate and the gap between two flat plates.1 Confined fluid behavior of the four possible situations (for these three geometries) can be explained in a unified framework under two categories based on only the meniscus shape (concave/convex). For systems with bulk-phase pressure imposed by a reservoir, the stable coexistence of pure liquid and vapor is possible only when the meniscus is concave.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".