MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415399335 · doi:10.1103/xmj5-dbgp

Mass diffusion and bending in dynamic wetting by phase-field and sharp-interface models

2025· article· en· W4415399335 on OpenAlexaff
Tomas Fullana, Stéphane Zaleski, Gustav Amberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSolidification and crystal growth phenomena
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersEuropean Research CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsCurvatureBoundary value problemSlip (aerodynamics)WettingSingularityRobustness (evolution)Classification of discontinuitiesContact angleConservation of mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic wetting poses a well-known challenge in classical sharp-interface formulation as the no-slip wall condition leads to a contact line singularity that is typically regularized with a Navier boundary condition, often requiring empirical fitting for the slip length. On the other hand, this paradox does not appear in phase-field models as the contact line moves through diffusive mass transport. In this work, we present a toy model that accounts for mass diffusion at the contact line within a sharp-interface framework. This model is based on a theoretical relation derived from the Cahn-Hilliard equations, which links the total diffusive mass transport to the curvature at the wall. From an estimate of the chemical potential on a curved interface, we obtain an expression for the width of the highly curved region δ and the apparent angle. In the sharp-interface model, we then introduce a fictitious boundary, displaced by a distance δ into the domain, where a Navier boundary condition is applied along a dynamic apparent contact angle that accounts for the local interface bending. The robustness of the model is assessed by comparing the toy model results with standard phase-field ones on two cases: the steady state profiles of a liquid bridge between two plates moving in opposite directions and the transient behaviors of a drop spreading on a solid with a prescribed equilibrium angle. This offers a practical and efficient alternative to solve contact line problems at lower cost in a sharp-interface framework with input parameters from phase-field models.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicSolidification and crystal growth phenomenaFrench-language works237,207