MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412538479 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b03292

Fast Liquid Transfer between Surfaces: Breakup of Stretched Liquid Bridges

2015· article· en· W2412538479 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Chen, Tian Tang, Alidad Amirfazli

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research ChairsAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesXerox Foundation
KeywordsBreakupLiquid liquidMaterials scienceChemistryChromatographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a systematic experimental study was performed to understand the fast liquid transfer process between two surfaces. According to the value of the Reynolds number (Re), the fast transfer is divided into two different scenarios, one with negligible inertia effects (Re ≪ 1) and the other with significant inertia effects (Re > 1). For Re ≪ 1, the influences of the capillary number (Ca) and the dimensionless minimum separation (H(min)* = H(min)/V(1/3), where H(min) is the minimum separation between two surfaces and V is the volume of liquid) on the transfer ratio (α, the volume of liquid transferred to the acceptor surface over the total liquid volume) are discussed. On the basis of the roles of each physical parameter, an empirical equation is presented to predict the transfer ratio, α = f(Ca). This equation involves two coefficients which are affected only by the surface contact angles and H(min)* but not by the liquid viscosity or surface tension. When Re > 1, it is shown for the first time that the transfer ratio does not converge to 0.5 with the increase in the stretching speed.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207