MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time dependence of contact angle and its relation to repellency persistence in hydrophobized sand

2009· article· en· W1968511731 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D. A. L. Leelamanie, Jutaro Karube

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science & Plant Nutrition · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsContact angleSurface energyPenetration (warfare)Drop (telecommunication)Sessile drop techniqueWater repellentAdsorptionSoil scienceChemistryMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Soil water repellency is a transient soil property varying with soil–water contact time. The purpose of the present study was to determine the time dependence of the sessile drop contact angle and its relation to repellency persistence estimated using the water drop penetration time (WDPT) test with hydrophobized sand. The contact angle decreased exponentially and almost reached apparent equilibrium after 20 min of soil–water contact time. Time dependence of the contact angle can mainly be attributed to the adsorption of water molecules onto low-energy hydrophobic organic matter surfaces. Contact angles initially greater than 90° decreased to less than 90° within about 40 s. However, the WDPT of these samples was longer than 3600 s. The WDPT responded to the initial contact angle, but not to the contact angle decreased with soil–water contact time. This was considered to be caused by differences in the surface free energy between the surface and the lower layers. Repellency persistence, or the WDPT, can be considered to be the time taken to increase the surface free energy to overcome water repellency, not only on the surface in contact with the droplet, but also in the adjacent layers below the surface.

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)0.001
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 score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science & Plant NutritionSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207