Controlled Orientation and Alignment in Films of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Using Inkjet Printing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inkjet printing procedure for depositing films of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) that exhibit a very high degree of long-range mutual alignment as well as a controlled orientation with respect to the printed geometry is presented. CNT self-assembly was induced by the intrinsic lyotropic liquid crystallinity of CNT suspensions. Sufficient concentrations are reached by matching the inkjet deposition rate to the numerically modeled local evaporation rate of the printed feature and enable the CNT suspension to be printed using standard inkjet printing. Surface alignment was verified using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and polarized light microscopy. In addition, the bulk morphology was investigated and found to be composed of stacked planar layers that did not necessarily have the same long-range orientation found on the surface. The bulk morphology was characterized by removing layers through an elastomeric peeling process and by observing cross sections of the films using SEM. CNT concentration and length were spanned experimentally, and it was found that very short and very long CNTs as well as low concentration suspensions did not yield long-range alignment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".