Gibbsian Thermodynamics of Cassie–Baxter Wetting (Were Cassie and Baxter Wrong? Revisited)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been a debate over the correct form of the Cassie-Baxter equation, which describes the expected contact angle of a liquid drop on a heterogeneous surface. The original Cassie-Baxter equation uses an area fraction of each solid phase calculated over the entirety of the surface, and its derivation is based on an assumption not all surfaces necessarily satisfy. Herein, we introduce fundamental Gibbsian composite-system thermodynamics as a new approach for deriving the complete set of equilibrium conditions for a liquid drop resting on a heterogeneous multiphase solid substrate. One of the equilibrium conditions is a form of the Cassie-Baxter equation that uses a line fraction determined at the contact line outlining the perimeter of the solid-liquid contact area. We elucidate the practical implications of using the line fraction for common patterns of heterogeneities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".