Experimental methods in chemical engineering: Contact angles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The contact angle (CA) formed at equilibrium at the three‐phase line of contact between a liquid, a solid, and a gas may be expressed as a function of both the interfacial and surface tensions. Young first derived this thermodynamic relationship in 1805. In practice, multiple CA values are observed due to kinetic phenomena induced by evaporation, vapour adsorption, or swelling, and thermodynamic ones induced by roughness and surface chemical heterogeneities, even at molecular‐scale. These non‐ideal conditions result into an hysteresis, i.e., a difference between wetting and dewetting behaviours, and Young's equation rarely applies. Three measuring methods stand out for their applicability and reliability. In the sessile drop method, a syringe deposits a liquid drop on a flat surface and the contact angle is measured through optical means based on the drop shape. In the Wilhelmy balance method, the force required to immerse a solid plate in a bath of liquid is indirectly related to the contact angle. In the Washburn capillary rise method, the contact angle is derived from the rate at which a liquid rises by capillarity through a packed bed of powder. Employing probe liquids of various polarities, the free surface energy of the solid may be estimated. Over the last two years, 8600 published articles mentioned “contact angle” in their topic. Their main focus was either to develop the fundamental understanding of wetting science, or to assess the success of surface modification methods for the production of novel surfaces, composites, and membranes with enhanced wetting, adhesive, and filtration properties.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it