Interaction between two nanoscale elliptical holes with surface tension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the plane problem of two elliptical nanoscale holes with surface tension is investigated. Firstly, the basic equations are given via the complex variable methods. Then, the stress boundary condition caused by surface tension is derived through the integral-form Gurtin–Murdoch model. The problem is finally solved by the conformal mapping along with the series expansion methods. The results show that the stress field decreases as the two holes become further away from each other. When the distance between the two holes is more than three times the sum of their sizes, the interaction between the two holes can be neglected. In addition, the stress field is greatly influenced by the orientation, aspect ratio and size of the holes. The positions of the maximum hoop stress are also discussed. When the two elliptical holes are put close horizontally, the hoop stress around one hole usually obtain its maximum at the endpoint close to the other hole. However, if one elliptical hole is not horizontal, the hoop stress around it will no longer attain its maximum at the endpoints. Another exception is that when one elliptical hole becomes larger, the hoop stress around the smaller hole would tend to achieve a local minimum at the endpoint close to the larger hole.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".