MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402227163 · doi:10.1063/5.0228482

A catastrophe phenomenon produced by impact of drop trains

2024· article· en· W4402227163 on OpenAlexaff
Qin Zeng, Shangtuo Qian, Yan Feng, Ping Luo, Wenming Zhang, Kan Kan, Huixiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesGraduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsMechanicsDrop (telecommunication)TrainPhenomenonStatistical physicsClassical mechanicsMechanical engineeringQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of drop trains is widespread in industrial and agricultural applications, as well as in nature, making it crucial to investigate. In this study, the impact of drop trains on solid surfaces is experimentally investigated using a high-speed camera. A catastrophe phenomenon that had previously been overlooked is discovered: with the successive impact of drop trains, the impact result undergoes a discontinuous catastrophe, from a thin film impact generating the crown splash to a thick film impact generating the Worthington jet. The thickness of the thin film is less than 0.23 times the impact drop's diameter, while the thickness of the thick film ranges from 0.52 to 1.05 times the impact drop's diameter. The reason for the catastrophe is revealed from a phenomenological perspective. The number of impact drops and the impact Weber number are important factors determining the occurrence of catastrophe, and the critical number of impact drops for the catastrophe is linearly and positively correlated with the impact Weber number. Based on the cusp catastrophe theory, a catastrophe threshold model for drop train impact is established. This model is able to predict the threshold for the occurrence of catastrophe and provide a method for identifying the thin film stage, the thick film stage, and the transient catastrophe stage between these two stages. The catastrophe threshold model achieves the identification accuracy of 83.48%, 91.72%, and 77.50% for the total measured data, the thin film stage, and the thick film stage, respectively, indicating its good performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207