MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795828034 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-19801-4

Thermal Dynamics Effects using Pulse-Shaping Laser Sintering of Printed Silver Inks

2018· article· en· W2795828034 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Bolduc, Charles Trudeau, Patrick Beaupré, Sylvain G. Cloutier, Pierre Galarneau

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureInstitut National d'Optique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsSinteringSelective laser sinteringThermalMaterials scienceLaserDynamics (music)Pulse (music)3d printedOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyComputer scienceComposite materialBiomedical engineeringOpticsTelecommunicationsMedicineAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, additive manufacturing has been evolving towards flexible substrates for the fabrication of printable electronic devices and circuits. Generally polymer-based, these emerging substrates suffer from their heat sensitivity and low glass-transition temperatures. As such they require new highly-localized sintering processes to treat the electronic inks without damaging the polymer-based substrate. Laser-based sintering techniques have shown great promises to achieve high-quality sintering locally, while controlling the heat penetration to preserve the polymer substrates integrity. In this report, we explore new optimization pathways for dynamic laser-based sintering of conductive silver inks. Multiple passes of a pulsed laser are first performed while varying pulse train frequencies and pulse energies as an attempt to optimize the properties of the silver inks. Then, time-domain pulse shaping is performed to alter the properties of the conductive inks. Together, these pathways allow for the careful control of the time-domain laser energy distribution in order to achieve the best electronic performances while preserving the substrate's integrity. Sheet resistance values as low as 0.024Ω/□ are achieved, which is comparable to conventional 1-hour oven annealing, with the processing time dramatically reduced to the milisecond range. These results are supported by finite element modeling of the laser-induced thermal dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207