Electro‐optical properties of holographically patterned polymer‐stabilized cholesteric liquid crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electro‐optical properties of cholesteric liquid crystals (LCs) with holographically patterned polymer stabilization were examined. It is hypothesized that increasing the LC domain size in a single dimension, relative to a random three‐dimensional network of LC pockets separated by polymer strands, will allow enhanced electro‐optical properties of the final device. Prior to holographic patterning, polymer stabilization with large elastic memory was generated by way of high irradiation intensities and optimized material choices. High irradiation intensities are required for the holographic patterning process to maintain polymer layer formation. At optimized conditions, polymer patterning of the stabilization allowed for an approximate 20% increase in the clear state transmission of the device, and allowed for an approximate 3 V µm−1 reduction in the overall switching voltage as compared to an analogous floodlit irradiated sample. Switching times were increased at most threefold with holographic patterning, but all relaxation times were below 20 ms. The enhanced electro‐optical properties appear to stem from a single dimension domain size increase, which allows for a reduction in the LC/polymer interaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".