MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045469608 · doi:10.1021/la901737y

Drop Shedding by Shear Flow for Hydrophilic to Superhydrophobic Surfaces

2009· article· en· W2045469608 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. B. Milne, Alidad Amirfazli

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact angleAirflowWettingMechanicsDrop (telecommunication)HexadecaneMaterials scienceShearing (physics)OpticsComposite materialChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A balance of surface science and aerodynamic knowledge is brought to bear to elucidate the fundamental parameters determining the incipient motion (runback) for a drop exposed to shearing airflow. It was found that wetting parameters such as contact angle are very influential in determining the minimum required air velocity for drop shedding. On the basis of experimental results for drops of water and hexadecane (0.5-100 microL) on PMMA, Teflon, and a superhydrophobic aluminum surface, an exponential function is proposed that relates the critical air velocity for shedding to the ratio of drop base length to projected area. The results for all of the water systems can be collapsed to self-similar curves by normalization. Results from other researchers also conform to the exponential self-similar functional form proposed. It was shown that the data for hexadecane drops can be matched relatively well to those for water drops by means of a corrective factor based on fluid properties and contact angles. Also, the critical air velocity for shedding from the superhydrophobic surface is seen to be more constant over a range of volumes than for the other surfaces. Finally, contact angle measurements from airflow shedding experiments are compared to measurements made by tilted plate and quasi-static advancing and receding tests. The observed differences between contact angles from different measurement methods show that the transfer of contact angle data among various applications must be done with care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
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 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

Citations173
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207