“Contact” of Nanoscale Stiff Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the contact behaviors of a nanoscopic stiff thin film bonded to a compliant substrate and derived an analytical solution for determining the elastic modulus of thin films. Microscopic contact deformations of the gold and polydopamine thin films (<200 nm) coated on polydimethylsiloxane elastomers were measured by indenting a soft tip and analyzed in the framework of the classical plate theory and Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) contact mechanics. The analysis of this thin film contact mechanics focused on the bending and stretching resistance of thin films and is fundamentally different from conventional indentation measurements where the focus is on the fracture and compression of the films. The analytical solution of the elastic modulus of nanoscopic thin films was validated experimentally using 50 and 100 nm gold thin films coated on polydimethylsiloxane elastomers. The technical application of this analysis was further demonstrated by measuring the elastic modulus of thin films of polydopamine, a recently discovered biomimetic universal coating material. Furthermore, the method presented here is able to quantify the contact behaviors of nanoscopic thin films, effectively providing fundamental design parameters, the elastic modulus, and the work of adhesion, crucial for transferring them effectively into practical applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".