Reactive Wet Stamping for Patterning of Polyelectrolyte Multilayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterning of soft films, especially their bulk and not only their surface properties, presents a challenge. Several lithographic techniques do exist, but many of them are complex or limited in their ability to change properties. A few methods of patterning polyelectrolyte multilayers (PEM) have been reported, including microcontact printing and selectively growing layers on patterned self-assembled monolayers, but these all come with certain limitations. We present here the use of a modified microcontact printing method, reactive wet stamping (r-WETs), using a hydrogel stamp soaked in aqueous solutions to create patterns in PEMs. With this technique we are able to locally cause swelling and porosity changes in the PEM films and use our method to qualitatively study the evolution of the porous film morphology. This technique has the potential to locally control chemical functionality, film thickness, and mechanical properties, leading to a new ability to control film architectures both at the film surface and within the bulk of the film.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".