MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385456462 · doi:10.1063/5.0159828

Effects of dilute low molecular weight poly(ethylene oxide) solutions in immiscible radial viscous fingering instabilities

2023· article· en· W4385456462 on OpenAlexafffund
Young H. Lee, Jingyi Wang, Ian D. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta InnovatesCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsWeissenberg numberViscous fingeringEthylene oxideInstabilityPhysicsMaterials scienceMechanicsComposite materialFlow (mathematics)Polymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We experimentally study the effects of normal stress differences in the immiscible radial viscous fingering instability in a Hele–Shaw cell. Dilute low molecular weight poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) solutions are used as the displaced fluid to focus on elastic effects without shear-thinning behavior. The molecular weight of PEO is varied to investigate the effects of normal stress differences. The experimental observations reveal that nonmonotonic and opposing effects are evident depending on the molecular weight of the PEO and the stage of the radial viscous fingering evolution. Decreases in the PEO molecular weight reduce the number of fingers and widen the finger width in the early stage. However, the increase in the PEO molecular weight promotes tip splitting and narrows finger width in the early stage but suppresses tip splitting in the intermediate stage. Weissenberg numbers are estimated at different stages of radial viscous fingering instabilities. Tip splitting occurs at the highest Weissenberg number covered in this study and suppression of tip splitting is observed at intermediate Weissenberg numbers. At low Weissenberg numbers, we observe an increased finger width and a reduced number of fingers.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207