MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2605461311 · doi:10.1117/12.2263980

On the modeling and characterization of an interlocked flexible electronic skin

2017· article· en· W2605461311 on OpenAlexaff
Nazanin Khalili, Xuechen Shen, Hani E. Naguib

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceElectronic skinPolydimethylsiloxaneElectrical conductorElastomerPiezoresistive effectTactile sensorGrapheneComposite numberCarbon nanotubeComposite materialSubstrate (aquarium)Electrical contactsContact resistanceNanotechnologyComputer scienceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of an electronic skin with ultra-high pressure sensitivity is now of critical importance due its broad range of applications including prosthetic skins and biomimetic robotics. Microstructured conductive composite elastomers can acquire mechanical and electrical properties analogous to those of natural skin. One of the most prominent features of human skin is its tactile sensing property which can be mimicked in an electronic skin. Herein, an electrically conductive composite comprising polydimethylsiloxane and conductive fillers is used as a flexible and stretchable piezoresistive sensor. The electrical conductivity is induced within the elastomer matrix via carbon nanotubes whereas the piezoresistivity is obtained by means of microstructuring the surface of the substrate. An interlocked array of pyramids in micro-scale allows the change in the contact resistance between two thin layers of the composite upon application of an external load. Deformation of the interlocked arrays endows the sensor with an ultra-high sensitivity to the external pressures within the range of human skin perception. Moreover, using finite element analysis, the change in the contact are between the two layers was captured for different geometries. The structure of the sensor can be optimized through an optimization model in order to acquire maximum sensitivity.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials→French-language works237,207→