Contact Angle Studies on Porous Silicon: Evidence for Heterogeneous Wetting and Implications of Oxidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of wetting was carried out on porous silicon films with pore diameters spanning three orders of magnitude. Water contact angle measurements on adjoining porous and nonporous regions yielded Wenzel roughness ratios that were either unphysical (less than unity) or unrealistically low when compared to those expected from specific surface area considerations. Moreover, results obtained from a sample consisting of a microporous film on a macroporous layer gave contact angles that were very similar to those found on films consisting of only a single microporous layer, contrary to what would be expected for complete filling of the pores by liquid. Values for wetted surface fractions calculated from the Cassie-Baxter model are unreasonably high for micro- , meso- and oxidized macroporous films considering their porosities, while relatively oxide-free macroporous films give wetted surface fractions in accord with those expected based on film porosity. Collectively, these results show that the predominant mode of wetting on these films is heterogeneous.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".