Contact angles and wettability: towards common and accurate terminology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much interest has recently been focused on contact angles, wetting and non-wettable surfaces as is evidenced by the rapid pace and sheer number of papers published in recent years. However, in many cases there exist misconceptions and misuses of terminology, leading to misinterpretation of experimental contact angles, measurements of which deceptively appear to be simple. Terms describing contact angles, wettability, superhydrophobicity and similar other terminology are loosely used. In this contribution, key terms used in relation to contact angles are defined precisely based on the accumulative knowledge from the surface chemistry community over the last decades. The definitions provided are scientifically rigorous to avoid any ambiguity and confusion. The theoretical considerations underlying these definitions are only briefly mentioned, with references to the relevant papers. Interpretation and meaning of the measured contact angles can be made simpler if the basic concepts are clearly understood and theory-based indications are applied. The clarity of definitions should make data interpretation and comparison easier for future contributions to journals, including this journal.
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 | 0.033 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".