A low-cost, high-yield fabrication method for producing optimized biomimetic dry adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a low-cost, large-scale method of fabricating biomimetic dry adhesives. This process is useful because it uses all photosensitive polymers with minimum fabrication costs or complexity to produce molds for silicone-based dry adhesives. A thick-film lift-off process is used to define molds using AZ 9260 photoresist, with a slow acting, deep UV sensitive material, PMGI, used as both an adhesion promoter for the AZ 9260 photoresist and as an undercutting material to produce mushroom-shaped fibers. The benefits to this process are ease of fabrication, wide range of potential layer thicknesses, no special surface treatment requirements to demold silicone adhesives and easy stripping of the full mold if process failure does occur. Sylgard® 184 silicone is used to cast full sheets of biomimetic dry adhesives off 4" diameter wafers, and different fiber geometries are tested for normal adhesion properties. Additionally, failure modes of the adhesive during fabrication are noted and strategies for avoiding these failures are discussed. We use this fabrication method to produce different fiber geometries with varying cap diameters and test them for normal adhesion strengths. The results indicate that the cap diameters relative to post diameters for mushroom-shaped fibers dominate the adhesion properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".