MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of four boundary conditions for the fluid-hydrogel interface

2022· article· en· W4296707150 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Fluids · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBoundary (topology)Interface (matter)MechanicsRest (music)Dimension (graph theory)Materials scienceFlow (mathematics)Fluid dynamicsNo-slip conditionBoundary layerBoundary layer thicknessPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisAcousticsBubbleCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a fluid flows past a blob of hydrogel, how much of it goes through the gel and how much goes around? The boundary condition on a fluid-gel interface is a subtle question rooted in the mismatch between the pore size and the macroscopic flow dimension. We test four boundary conditions and find one to be superior to the rest.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.310 · 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