Shedding of multiple sessile droplets by an airflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shedding of multiple sessile droplets by an airflow in triangle, square, reversed triangle, and diamond arrangements is examined. The interaction of the flow around the sessile droplets is found to be influenced by the type of the arrangement and the spacing of the sessile droplets in each arrangement. Consequently, the minimum airflow velocity required to shed the droplet (Ucr) also changes. Water droplets of 5 and 10 μl were used on both hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces in a laminar airflow. In general, at the minimum spacing, the highest increase in Ucr for the upstream droplet(s) (compared with that for a single droplet) was observed for the triangle arrangement (∼40%), followed by the diamond, reversed triangle, and square arrangements. Increasing the spacing resulted in a reduction of the Ucr for all the arrangements, except for the square arrangement where increasing the spacing does not show a substantial change in Ucr. Neither the size of the droplets nor the wettability of the substrate was found to significantly affect the amount of the change in the Ucr.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".