MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978560739 · doi:10.1117/12.815866

Modeling and optimization of ionic polymer gel actuators

2009· article· en· W1978560739 on OpenAlexaff
Choonghee Jo, Hani E. Naguib, Roy H. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDielectric materials and actuators
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceDeflection (physics)SwellingBoundary value problemActuatorElectric fieldBendingIonic bondingComposite materialDeformation (meteorology)PolymerIonComputer scienceChemistryOpticsPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electro-active behavior of ionic polymer gel was modeled and the optimum condition of decision parameters that maximize the deflection of gel was investigated. An actuation model characterizing the bending deformation of polymer gel under electric field was proposed considering the chemo-electro-mechanical parameters. In the modeling, swelling or shrinking phenomenon due to the difference of concentration at the boundary between the gel and solution was considered first before the electric field is applied. Then, bending deformation under the concentration difference of ions was calculated. Differential osmotic pressure at the boundary of gel and solution determine the degree of swelling or shrinking of gel. From this actuation behavior, strain or deformation of gel is calculated. To find the optimum conditions for the deformation of gel, a non-linear constrained optimization model was proposed, where the equation for bending deflection of gel is used as the objective function and the relationship among the decision variables and the range of the variables are used as constraints. In the optimization model, electric voltage, thickness of gel, concentration of polyion in the gel, ion concentration in the solution and degree of cross-linking in gel were considered as decision variables. The predictions by the proposed model were compared with experimental data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicDielectric materials and actuatorsFrench-language works237,207