MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003595121 · doi:10.1155/2011/606714

Deposition of PEDOT: PSS Nanoparticles as a Conductive Microlayer Anode in OLEDs Device by Desktop Inkjet Printer

2011· article· en· W2003595121 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarute Ummartyotin, J. Juntaro, Chia‐Lin Wu, Mohini Sain, Hathaikarn Manuspiya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanomaterials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoChulalongkorn University
KeywordsMaterials sciencePEDOT:PSSSubstrate (aquarium)PolystyreneNanotechnologyNanoparticlePolystyrene sulfonateSurface roughnessOLEDChemical engineeringLayer (electronics)Composite materialPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple microfabrication technique for delivering macromolecules and patterning microelectrode arrays using desktop inkjet printer was described. Aqueous solution of nanoparticle of poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) doped with polystyrene sulfonic acid (PSS) was prepared while its particle size, the surface tension, and the viscosity of the solution were adjusted to be suitable for deposition on a flexible cellulose nanocomposite substrate via inkjet printer. The statistical average of PEDOT: PSS particle size of 100 nm was observed. The microthickness, surface morphology, and electrical conductivity of the printed substrate were then characterized by profilometer, atomic force microscope (AFM), and four-point probe electrical measurement, respectively. The inkjet deposition of PEDOT: PSS was successfully carried out, whilst retained its transparency feature. Highly smooth surface (roughness ~23–44 nm) was achieved.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanomaterialsSame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207