Polymeric Bio‐<scp>I</scp>nspired Dry Adhesives: Van der Waals or Electrostatic Interactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With respect to the dry adhesion mechanism that geckos employ for their locomotion, it is commonly accepted that the adhesive performance of synthetic bio‐inspired dry adhesives results from the formation of van der Waals interactions at the tip or side of the dry adhesive fibrils with the substrate they are brought into contact with. However, what has been usually neglected in this connection is that electrostatic interactions may also be developed at the contact between any two materials via the familiar contact electrification (CE) phenomenon. Although CE is common and can have a large influence on interfacial interaction forces, its impact on adhesive properties of synthetic dry adhesives has been overlooked. Even so, recent reports on fabrication of polymeric dry adhesives, which can generate strong adhesion forces relying on electrostatic interactions coming from CE, have brought to light again the idea that charging the surface of dry adhesives, specifically polymeric ones, can play a very crucial role in their adhesive behavior. From this perspective, the main reasons that have caused the lack of attention to this concept and the possible contributions of CE in interfacial interactions of polymeric dry adhesives are thoroughly discussed in this current critical review.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".