MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308168675 · doi:10.1029/2022wr033246

Capillary Water in 2‐D Drying—Cracking Sub‐Grain Scale Soil Models: Dynamics and Instabilities of Haines Jumps

2022· article· en· W4308168675 on OpenAlexaff
Tomasz Hueckel, Bolesław Mielniczuk, Alexandre Guével, Manolis Veveakis

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstabilityMeniscusMechanicsSurface tensionCapillary actionCapillary pressureLaplace pressureCurvatureCapillary condensationMedial meniscusMaterials scienceLaplace transformInertiaThermodynamicsChemistryClassical mechanicsPhysicsMathematicsPorous mediumComposite materialPorosityGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Changes in capillary water morphology in a cluster of three wet long cylindrical grains as reported in Mielniczuk and Hueckel (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022wr031938 ) affect capillary forces evolving during drying. The paper focuses on a stable motion of menisci (air/liquid interfaces) and their unstable (Haines) jumps. The meniscus instabilities were shown in the past to be a trigger of soil drying‐cracking. The forces considered are Laplace pressure and surface tension resultants deduced from the menisci imaged every 10 s. The Laplace pressure for cylindrical clusters depends on a single curvature of the meniscus. Several known criteria the capillary body instability are examined using the experimental data. An extended Gibbs criterion points to a source of the instability. The instability is lost when the meniscus approaches the throat between the grains and when the balance is lost between the changes of forces of the Laplace pressure and of the surface tension acting at the meniscus. The presence of the surface tension forces in the instability considerations in addition to the Laplace pressure distinguishes Gibbs criterion from other criteria. Gibbs meniscus energy estimate also provides an inertia force arising to maintain the linear momentum balance for the meniscus, and a duration of the jump.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207