MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997365418 · doi:10.1063/5.0037123

Droplet impact of Newtonian fluids and blood on simple fabrics: Effect of fabric pore size and underlying substrate

2021· article· en· W2997365418 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Supercomputing Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology InformationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPenetration (warfare)Newtonian fluidLattice Boltzmann methodsNon-Newtonian fluidViscous liquidSubstrate (aquarium)Volume (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a droplet impacts a fabric mesh at a sufficiently high impact velocity, it not only spreads over the fabric but also penetrates its pores. To determine the influence of this liquid penetration of the fabric on droplet spreading on thin fabric meshes, we measured the droplet spreading ratio on fabric with and without an underlying substrate using a high-speed camera. For fabrics without a substrate, the droplet spreading ratio is reduced as the fabric penetration by the liquid reduces the droplet volume spreading on top of the fabric. Using entropic lattice Boltzmann simulations, we find that the lower droplet spreading ratio on fabrics, both with and without a substrate, is due to an increase in viscous losses inside the droplet during spreading. Comparing droplet impact of blood with its Newtonian counterpart, we show that for spreading on fabrics, just like on smooth surfaces, blood can be approximated as a Newtonian fluid.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations47
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207