MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900473430 · doi:10.3390/s19030444

Contactless In Situ Electrical Characterization Method of Printed Electronic Devices with Terahertz Spectroscopy

2019· article· en· W2900473430 on OpenAlexafffund
Mariia Zhuldybina, X. Ropagnol, Charles Trudeau, M. Bolduc, Ricardo J. Zednik, F. Blanchard

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTerahertz technology and applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTerahertz radiationCharacterization (materials science)InkwellMaterials sciencePrinted electronicsOptoelectronicsElectronics3D printingConductive inkElectronic componentTerahertz spectroscopy and technologyElectronic engineeringNanotechnologyElectrical engineeringEngineeringSheet resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Printed electronic devices are attracting significant interest due to their versatility and low cost; however, quality control during manufacturing is a significant challenge, preventing the widespread adoption of this promising technology. We show that terahertz (THz) radiation can be used for the in situ inspection of printed electronic devices, as confirmed through a comparison with conventional electrical conductivity methods. Our in situ method consists of printing a simple test pattern exhibiting a distinct signature in the THz range that enables the precise characterization of the static electrical conductivities of the printed ink. We demonstrate that contactless dual-wavelength THz spectroscopy analysis, which requires only a single THz measurement, is more precise and repeatable than the conventional four-point probe conductivity measurement method. Our results open the door to a simple strategy for performing contactless quality control in real time of printed electronic devices at any stage of its production line.

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)0.000
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicTerahertz technology and applicationsFrench-language works237,207