Droplet impact and flow into a gap between parallel plates
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Droplet impact on irregular, rough, or porous substrates can lead to inertia driven liquid penetration during droplet spread, air entrapment in voids, and triple-phase contact line pinning. This work focuses on inertia driven flow inside of a model long, narrow pore. We impacted 2 mm diameter water drops on long narrow gaps, photographing the impact and penetration with a high-speed camera, to understand how the flow develops and behaves inside these gaps. The experimental conditions varied were the velocity of impact (0.06–1.5 m/s) and the gap spacing between the plates (50–150 µm). The influence of inertia on the flow between the plates is negligible for impact velocities less than 0.5 m/s and can be predicted using a simple analytical model. Drops flow into larger gaps faster than smaller gaps at all impact velocities. Drops flow faster into gaps as impact velocity increases, but this has diminishing returns: at sufficiently high impact velocity the drop will cleave, which prevents a significant portion of the drop from flowing into the gap. Analytical models are presented to predict conditions under which the droplet will cleave and the rate of liquid penetration into the gap due to capillary forces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it