MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025503706 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2012-72060

Adhesion of Wax Droplets to Porous Substrates

2012· article· en· W2025503706 on OpenAlex
Shima Dadvar, S. Chandra, Nasser Ashgriz, S. Drappel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsXerox (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaxMaterials scienceComposite materialPolyethylenePorosityAdhesionAdhesiveUltimate tensile strengthSubstrate (aquarium)Paraffin waxPorous mediumLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adhesion of solid wax ink droplets to porous polyethylene and Teflon substrates was studied experimentally. Wax droplets with a diameter of 3 mm and an initial temperature of 110°C were dropped onto test surfaces from heights varying from 20–50 mm. The Teflon surfaces had holes drilled in them to create idealized porous surfaces while the porous polyethylene sheets had mean pore sizes of either 35 or 70 μm. The force required to remove the wax splats from the substrates was measured by a pull test. The detachment force increased with droplet impact velocity. A simple analytical model is proposed to predict the force attaching the wax splat to the surface: it has an adhesive component, calculated by multiplying the contact area between the splat and substrate by the strength of adhesion; and a cohesive component, calculated by multiplying the area of the pores into which wax penetrates by the ultimate tensile strength of wax. Predictions from the model agreed reasonably well with measurements.

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.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaterial Properties and ProcessingFrench-language works237,207