Understanding the Edge\nEffect in Wetting: A Thermodynamic\nApproach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge effect is known to hinder spreading of a sessile\ndrop. However,\nthe underlying thermodynamic mechanisms responsible for the edge effect\nstill is not well-understood. In this study, a free energy model has\nbeen developed to investigate the energetic state of drops on a single\npillar (from upright frustum to inverted frustum geometries). An analysis\nof drop free energy levels before and after crossing the edge allows\nus to understand the thermodynamic origin of the edge effect. In particular,\nfour wetting cases for a drop on a single pillar with different edge\nangles have been determined by understanding the characteristics of\nFE plots. A wetting map describing the four wetting cases is given\nin terms of edge angle and intrinsic contact angle. The results show\nthat the free energy barrier observed near the edge plays an important\nrole in determining the drop states, i.e., (1) stable or metastable\ndrop states at the pillar’s edge, and (2) drop collapse by\nliquid spilling over the edge completely or staying at an intermediate\nsidewall position of the pillar. This thermodynamic model presents\nan energetic framework to describe the functioning of the so-called\n“re-entrant” structures. Results show good consistency\nwith the literature and expand the current understanding of Gibbs’\ninequality condition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.081 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".