Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our previous work, we explored the dynamics of a dilute suspension of rigid dumbbells as a model for polymeric liquids in large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow, a flow experiment that has gained a significant following in recent years. We chose rigid dumbbells since these are the simplest molecular model to give higher harmonics in the components of the stress response. We derived the expression for the dumbbell orientation distribution, and then we used this function to calculate the shear stress response, and normal stress difference responses in large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow. In this paper, we deepen our understanding of the polymer motion underlying large-amplitude oscillatory shear flow by decomposing the orientation distribution function into its first five Fourier components (the zeroth, first, second, third, and fourth harmonics). We use three-dimensional images to explore each harmonic of the polymer motion. Our analysis includes the three most important cases: (i) nonlinear steady shear flow (where the Deborah number λω is zero and the Weissenberg number λγ̇0 is above unity), (ii) nonlinear viscoelasticity (where both λω and λγ̇0 exceed unity), and (iii) linear viscoelasticity (where λω exceeds unity and where λγ̇0 approaches zero). We learn that the polymer orientation distribution is spherical in the linear viscoelastic regime, and otherwise tilted and peanut-shaped. We find that the peanut-shaping is mainly caused by the zeroth harmonic, and the tilting, by the second. The first, third, and fourth harmonics of the orientation distribution make only slight contributions to the overall polymer motion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.757 | 0.712 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".