MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200366710 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27383-5

Cavitation upon low-speed solid–liquid impact

2021· article· en· W4200366710 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsCavitationSlammingSolid surfaceMechanicsCylinderImpact pressureMaterials scienceCompressibilityUnderwaterPhysicsGeologyMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringChemical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a solid object impacts on the surface of a liquid, extremely high pressure develops at the site of contact. Von Karman's study of this classical physics problem showed that the pressure on the bottom surface of the impacting body approaches infinity for flat impacts. Yet, in contrast to the high pressures found from experience and in previous studies, we show that a flat-bottomed cylinder impacting a pool of liquid can decrease the local pressure sufficiently to cavitate the liquid. Cavitation occurs because the liquid is slightly compressible and impact creates large pressure waves that reflect from the free surface to form negative pressure regions. We find that an impact velocity as low as ~3 m/s suffices to cavitate the liquid and propose a new cavitation number to predict cavitation onset in low-speed solid-liquid impact-scenarios. These findings imply that localized cavitation could occur in impacts such as boat slamming, cliff jumping, and ocean landing of spacecraft.

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 score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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