MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-Propelled Detachment upon Coalescence of Surface Bubbles

2021· article· en· W3214969323 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanada First Research Excellence FundNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMinisterie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en WetenschapCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCoalescence (physics)BubbleKinetic energyWork (physics)Chemical energyHydrogenSurface energyJumping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The removal of microbubbles from substrates is crucial for the efficiency of many catalytic and electrochemical gas evolution reactions in liquids. The current work investigates the coalescence and detachment of bubbles generated from catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Self-propelled detachment, induced by the coalescence of two bubbles, is observed at sizes much smaller than those determined by buoyancy. Upon coalescence, the released surface energy is partly dissipated by the bubble oscillations, working against viscous drag. The remaining energy is converted to the kinetic energy of the out-of-plane jumping motion of the merged bubble. The critical ratio of the parent bubble sizes for the jumping to occur is theoretically derived from an energy balance argument and found to be in agreement with the experimental results. The present results provide both physical insight for the bubble interactions and practical strategies for applications in chemical engineering and renewable energy technologies like electrolysis.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207