MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516010123 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b02189

Understanding the Early Regime of Drop Spreading

2016· article· en· W2516010123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDrop (telecommunication)Materials scienceChemistryMechanicsNanotechnologyChemical physicsThermodynamicsChemical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present experimental data to characterize the spreading of a liquid drop on a substrate kept submerged in another liquid medium. They reveal that drop spreading always begins in a regime dominated by drop viscosity where the spreading radius scales as r ∼ t with a nonuniversal prefactor. This initial viscous regime either lasts in its entirety or switches to an intermediate inertial regime where the spreading radius grows with time following the well-established inertial scaling of r ∼ t(1/2). This latter case depends on the characteristic viscous length scale of the problem. In either case, the final stage of spreading, close to equilibrium, follows Tanner's law. Further experiments performed on the same substrate kept in ambient air reveal a similar trend, albeit with limited spatiotemporal resolution, showing the universal nature of the spreading behavior. It is also found that, for early times of spreading, the process is similar to coalescence of two freely suspended liquid drops, making the presence of the substrate and consequently the three-phase contact line insignificant.

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.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.154 · 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