MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775854755 · doi:10.1002/adma.201704407

Artificial Muscles: Mechanisms, Applications, and Challenges

2017· review· en· W2775854755 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seyed M. Mirvakili, Ian W. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial muscleMaterials scienceActuatorElectrostrictionNanotechnologyPolymerBiomimetic materialsNanocompositeElastomerFabricationNanomaterialsNanowireElectroactive polymersSmart materialPiezoelectricityCarbon nanotubeShape-memory alloyComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The area of artificial muscle is a highly interdisciplinary field of research that has evolved rapidly in the last 30 years. Recent advances in nanomaterial fabrication and characterization, specifically carbon nanotubes and nanowires, have had major contributions in the development of artificial muscles. However, what can artificial muscles really do for humans? This question is considered here by first examining nature's solutions to this design problem and then discussing the structure, actuation mechanism, applications, and limitations of recently developed artificial muscles, including highly oriented semicrystalline polymer fibers; nanocomposite actuators; twisted nanofiber yarns; thermally activated shape-memory alloys; ionic-polymer/metal composites; dielectric-elastomer actuators; conducting polymers; stimuli-responsive gels; piezoelectric, electrostrictive, magnetostrictive, and photostrictive actuators; photoexcited actuators; electrostatic actuators; and pneumatic actuators.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,062
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207