MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015707924 · doi:10.1080/00218460490477675

DETERMINATION OF SOLID SURFACE TENSION FROM CONTACT ANGLES: THE ROLE OF SHAPE AND SIZE OF LIQUID MOLECULES

2004· article· en· W2015707924 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Tavana, Roya Gitiafroz, Michael L. Hair, A. W. Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Adhesion · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact angleSurface tensionMaterials scienceMoleculeSolid surfaceSurface (topology)WettingLiquid nitrogenChemical physicsThermodynamicsComposite materialOrganic chemistryChemistryGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate surface tension of Teflon® AF 1600 was determined using contact angles of liquids with bulky molecules. For one group of liquids, the contact angle data fall quite perfectly on a smooth curve corresponding to γsv = 13.61 mJ/m2, with a mean deviation of only ±0.24 degrees from this curve. Results suggest that these liquids do not interact with the solid in a specific fashion. However, contact angles of a second group of liquids with fairly bulky molecules containing oxygen atoms, nitrogen atoms, or both deviate somewhat from this curve, up to approximately 3 degrees. Specific interactions between solid and liquid molecules and reorientation of liquid molecules in the close vicinity of the solid surface are the most likely causes of the deviations. It is speculated that such processes induce a change in the solid–liquid interfacial tension, causing the contact angle deviations mentioned above. Criteria are established for determination of accurate solid surface tensions.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of AdhesionSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207