MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095389994 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23918

Hydrodynamics of bubble coalescence in microchannels

2020· article· en· W3095389994 on OpenAlex
Siddharth Khadiya, Sadhana Kumari, Raghvendra Gupta

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsBubbleVolume of fluid methodMechanicsRADIUSCoalescence (physics)MicrofluidicsVolumetric flow rateVolume (thermodynamics)Flow (mathematics)Work (physics)Materials sciencePhysicsNanotechnologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas‐liquid flow in microchannels is relevant to a number of microfluidic devices without moving parts for application in chemical micro‐processing, inkjet printing, and electronics cooling. Over a large range of gas and liquid flow rates, gas bubbles have the same size as that of the channel. Such bubbles are nearly spherical in shape until their radius is less than that of the channel. The bubbles with a larger volume expand along the axis taking a capsular or bullet shape and are commonly known as Taylor bubbles. For air‐water flow, the spherical bubble is observed to move with a velocity higher than that of the Taylor bubble. In this work, the flow of a Taylor bubble followed by a spherical one, initially separated by several channel diameters, has been studied numerically using the volume of fluid (VOF) method. The hydrodynamics during the bubble approach as well as the evolution of the doublet, that is, the merged bubble, has been investigated. To track the velocity of each bubble with time during the bubble approach stage, a novel methodology has been developed using k‐means clustering algorithm. The evolution of the interface of the doublet has been monitored. The neck radius of the doublet grows as τ 0.5 , τ being the time since the contact between the bubble interfaces, when the interface is away from the wall. In the near wall region, the radius grows more slowly and is proportional to τ 0.1 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.150 · 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