MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765394769 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13090-z

Semi-Empirical Estimation of Dean Flow Velocity in Curved Microchannels

2017· article· en· W2765394769 on OpenAlexafffund
Pouriya Bayat, Pouya Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsMicrofluidicsMechanicsSpiral (railway)SortingDisplacement (psychology)VortexMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)Hydraulic diameterFlow velocityMicrochannelPhysicsNanotechnologyComputer scienceMechanical engineeringReynolds numberEngineeringTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curved and spiral microfluidic channels are widely used in particle and cell sorting applications. However, the average Dean velocity of secondary vortices which is an important design parameter in these devices cannot be estimated precisely with the current knowledge in the field. In this paper, we used co-flows of dyed liquids in curved microchannels with different radii of curvatures and monitored the lateral displacement of fluids using optical microscopy. A quantitative Switching Index parameter was then introduced to calculate the average Dean velocity in these channels. Additionally, we developed a validated numerical model to expand our investigations to elucidating the effects of channel hydraulic diameter, width, and height as well as fluid kinematic viscosity on Dean velocity. Accordingly, a non-dimensional comprehensive correlation was developed based on our numerical model and validated against experimental results. The proposed correlation can be used extensively for the design of curved microchannels for manipulation of fluids, particles, and biological substances in spiral microfluidic devices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207