General Methodology for Evaluating the Adhesion Force of Drops and Bubbles on Solid Surfaces
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shortcomings of the current formulation for calculating the adhesion force for drops and bubbles with noncircular contact lines are discussed. A general formulation to evaluate the adhesion force due to surface forces is presented. Also, a novel methodology, that is, IBAFA, image based adhesion force analysis, was developed to allow implementation of the general formulation. IBAFA is based on the use of multiple profile images of a drop. The images are analyzed (1) to accurately reconstruct the contact line shape, which is analytically represented by a Fourier cosine series, and (2) to measure contact angles at multiple locations along the contact line and determine the contact angle distribution based on a linear piecewise interpolation routine. The contact line shape reconstruction procedure was validated with both actual experiments and simulated experiments. The procedure for the evaluation of the adhesion force was tested using simulated experiments with synthetic drops of known shapes. A comparison with current methods showed that simplifying assumptions (e.g., elliptical contact line or linear contact angle distribution) used in these methods result in errors up to 76% in the estimated adhesion force. However, the drop adhesion force evaluated using IBAFA results in small errors on the order of 1%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it