MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621522241 · doi:10.1121/1.4987295

Numerical investigation of the subharmonic response of a cloud of interacting microbubbles

2017· article· en· W2621522241 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Haghi, Amin Jafari Sojahrood, Raffi Karshafian, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobubblesSubharmonicAmplitudePhase (matter)Resonance (particle physics)PopulationExcitationExcited stateAcousticsMaterials sciencePhysicsMechanicsAtomic physicsNonlinear systemUltrasoundOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbubbles (MBs) usually exist in polydisperse populations and often strongly interact with each other. Accurate investigation of the dynamics of the MBs requires considering the interaction between Microbubbles. We have developed an efficient method for numerically simulating N interacting MBs. The subharmonic (SH) responses of a polydispersions of 3-52 microbubbles with sizes between 2-5 microns, excited with ultrasound with a frequency and pressure of 1.8-8 MHz and 1-500 kPa were investigated. We show that if the frequency is set to the SH resonance of the larger MBs, the smaller MBs oscillations are controlled by the larger MB and the SH amplitude of the population of MBs increases. For small enough distances between MBs, one large MB may control the oscillations of the rest. If the excitation frequency is equal to the SH resonance of the smaller MBs, there exists two pressure regions. For lower pressures, the oscillations of the larger MB are out of phase with the smaller MBs and the resulting SH amplitude is smaller than the case without the bigger MB. As the pressure increases the oscillations of the larger MB becomes in phase with the smaller MBs and the SH response of the system is enhanced.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207