MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134715410 · doi:10.2174/1876531901103010115

Adhesion Properties of Self-Polymerized Dopamine Thin Film

2011· article· en· W2134715410 on OpenAlexafffund
Fut K. Yang, Boxin Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Surface Science Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Surface Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolydimethylsiloxaneContact angleAdhesionPolymerizationPolymerElastomerComposite materialAdhesiveThin filmLayer (electronics)Nanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report an experimental study of the adhesion properties of polydopamine thin films and their bonding behavior on polymer, glass and metal surfaces. Dopamine is able to adsorb onto all surfaces and self-polymerize into a thin hydrophilic film. Dynamic contact angle measurements revealed a large contact angle hysteresis between advancing and receding angles and a possible hydration layer when exposed to water. Polydopamine-coated surfaces in air are relatively inert having a low self-adhesion compared with polydimethylsiloxane elastomer surfaces, reflecting the nonconformal, glassy nature of polydopamine thin films. The dopamine aqueous solution was found able to bond two rigid surfaces (e.g. aluminum and glass) but it might not be suitable for joining soft or flexible polymer surfaces as polydopamine films are glassy and subject to internal cracks induced by the mismatch of elastic modulus. The research findings provide insights into the potential application of dopamine self-polymerization for adhesive bonding or joining of dissimilar materials.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations69
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Surface Science JournalSame topicPolymer Surface Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207