Scaling Effects on Materials Tribology: From Macro to Micro Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tribological study of materials inherently involves the interaction of surface asperities at the micro to nanoscopic length scales. This is the case for large scale engineering applications with sliding contacts, where the real area of contact is made up of small contacting asperities that make up only a fraction of the apparent area of contact. This is why researchers have sought to create idealized experiments of single asperity contacts in the field of nanotribology. At the same time, small scale engineering structures known as micro- and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS and NEMS) have been developed, where the apparent area of contact approaches the length scale of the asperities, meaning the real area of contact for these devices may be only a few asperities. This is essentially the field of microtribology, where the contact size and/or forces involved have pushed the nature of the interaction between two surfaces towards the regime where the scale of the interaction approaches that of the natural length scale of the features on the surface. This paper provides a review of microtribology with the purpose to understand how tribological processes are different at the smaller length scales compared to macrotribology. Studies of the interfacial phenomena at the macroscopic length scales (e.g., using in situ tribometry) will be discussed and correlated with new findings and methodologies at the micro-length scale.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".