MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988758822 · doi:10.1021/la702114c

Fabrication of Surface Energy/Chemical Gradients Using Self-Assembled Monolayer Surfaces

2008· article· en· W1988758822 on OpenAlexafffund
Sornanathan Meyyappan, Mohammad Reza Shadnam, Alidad Amirfazli

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDesorptionWettingMonolayerSelf-assembled monolayerLaserAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistrySubstrate (aquarium)Surface energyMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOpticsAdsorptionComposite materialChromatographyOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct laser patterning of surface energy gradients for alkanethiols on gold has been demonstrated. A homogeneous 1-hexadecanethiol self-assembled monolayer (SAM) on gold (supported by a glass substrate) was selectively desorbed using a focused laser beam. By continually varying the incident laser intensity along a straight line scan, a gradient in desorption was produced. This desorption gradient was then backfilled with the second SAM (16-mercaptohexadecanoic acid), to produce a wettability gradient. The gradient in wettability was characterized by condensation imaging. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy was also used to show variation of the second SAM population from maximum to zero along the length, representative of the chemical gradient. The hexadecanethiol desorption was found to be the most sensitive in a laser intensity range of 29.15-6.5 kW/cm2. By considering the functional behavior of the governing equations, the theoretical trend for desorption as a function of laser intensity (represented by the out-of-focus distance) was determined. It was found to conform to the experimental data. The proposed method is fast, simple, noncontact, and flexible in terms of producing different types of gradients.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207