MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414037703 · doi:10.1063/5.0284737

Flow field around the encapsulated droplets on impact-driven liquid-liquid encapsulation: Effect of interfacial layer and impact Weber number

2025· article· en· W4414037703 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoshiyasu Ichikawa, Utsab Banerjee, Sirshendu Misra, Surjyasish Mitra, Sushanta K. Mitra

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsEncapsulation (networking)MechanicsNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study visualized the complex flow dynamics around the encapsulated droplets generated by impact-driven liquid-liquid encapsulation. In our experiment, a core drop is dispensed from a needle tip and penetrates the interfacial layer formed on a host liquid, resulting in the formation of a drop encapsulated by the interfacial layer. While the hydrodynamics of the encapsulation process significantly influence the morphology and stability of the droplet, detailed knowledge of the surrounding flow field remains scarce. To fill this gap, we conducted comprehensive flow measurements using two-dimensional particle image velocimetry, capturing the flow field during the encapsulation process—impact, interfacial penetration and necking, and cargo separation. Our findings reveal that both velocity and vorticity distributions exhibit similar trends, regardless of the presence of the interfacial layer. Furthermore, we explored the effect of the impact Weber number, revealing that the flow field in encapsulation cases can be categorized into three distinct types based on time series vorticity data obtained from the drop's wake. These insights advance the understanding of the encapsulation process and offer a new framework for analyzing flow behaviors in liquid-liquid systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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