MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321728231 · doi:10.1021/la4023135

Surface Thermodynamic Analysis of Fluid Confined in a Cone and Comparison with the Sphere–Plate and Plate–Plate Geometries

2013· article· en· W2321728231 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Zargarzadeh, Janet A.W. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeniscusMetastabilityContact angleThermodynamicsSurface energyPhase (matter)ChemistryThermodynamic equilibriumMechanicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicAdvanced Thermodynamics and Statistical MechanicsFrench-language works237,207