MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418808226 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b01960

Concentration Field Evolution during the Drying of a Thin Polymer Solution Film near the Contact Line

2015· article· en· W2418808226 on OpenAlexaff
Ashkan Babaie, Boris Stoeber

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary actionEvaporationMeniscusAqueous solutionPolymerContact angleVinyl alcoholMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Confocal laser scanning microscopyOptical microscopeChemistryOpticsComposite materialChromatographyScanning electron microscopeThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental study is performed for polymer concentration field measurements during the drying of an aqueous poly(vinyl alcohol) solution inside a shallow cavity near a vertical side wall. The measurements are based on optical techniques such as 3D confocal microscopy for laser-induced fluorescence analysis. The results reveal a significant concentration heterogeneity across the film near the meniscus during the drying process. The concentration at the solution-air interface remains higher compared to the bulk, and it increases toward the pinned contact line and also over time. A skin layer starts forming as the surface concentration reaches the glass-transition concentration, after which the evaporation rate starts decreasing. Regardless of the cavity depth and the initial polymer concentration, the drying film undergoes a similar concentration evolution during the evaporation process, although minor differences can be recognized. For instance, a low local capillary number at the surface is associated with a wavy surface concentration profile while at higher capillary numbers disturbances are damped and a much more uniform concentration profile is observed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207