MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416272017 · doi:10.1103/physreve.92.022404

Liquid-bridge breakup in contact-drop dispensing: Liquid-bridge stability with a free contact line

2015· article· en· W2416272017 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Akbari, Reghan J. Hill, Theo G. M. van de Ven

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFaculty of Engineering, McGill University
KeywordsBreakupDrop (telecommunication)Rotational symmetryContact angleMechanicsBoundary (topology)Materials scienceConstant (computer programming)GeometryPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisComposite materialEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The static stability of weightless liquid bridges with a free contact line with respect to axisymmetric and nonaxisymmetric perturbations is studied. Constant-volume and constant-pressure stability regions are constructed in slenderness versus cylindrical volume diagrams for fixed contact angles. Bifurcations along the stability-region boundaries are characterized by the structure of axisymmetric bridge branches and families of equilibria. A wave-number definition is presented based on the pieces-of-sphere states at branch terminal points to classify equilibrium branches and identify branch connections. Compared with liquid bridges pinned at two equal disks, the free contact line breaks the equatorial and reflective symmetries, affecting the lower boundary of the constant-volume stability region where axisymmetric perturbations are critical. Stability is lost at transcritical bifurcations and turning points along this boundary. Our results furnish the maximum-slenderness stability limit for drop deposition on real surfaces when the contact angle approaches the receding contact angle.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.290
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207