Contact Angle Hysteresis of Non-Flattened-Top Micro/Nanostructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-dimensional (2D) thermodynamic model is proposed to predict the contact angle (CA) and contact angle hysteresis (CAH) of different types of surface geometries, particularly those with asperities having nonflattened tops. The model is evaluated by micro/nano sinusoidal and parabolic patterns fabricated by laser ablation. These microstructures are analyzed thermodynamically through the use of the Gibbs free energy to obtain the equilibrium contact angle (CA) and contact angle hysteresis (CAH). The effects of the geometrical details of two types of microstructures on maximizing the superhydrophobicity of the nanopatterned surface are also discussed in an attempt to design surfaces with desired and/or optimum wetting characteristics. The analysis of the various surfaces reveals the important geometrical parameters that may lead to the lotus effect (high CA > 150° and low CAH < 10°) or petal effect (high CA > 150° and high CAH ≫ 10°).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".