MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941507793 · doi:10.1002/adma.201808256

Toward Design of Novel Materials for Organic Electronics

2019· review· en· W2941507793 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Friederich, Artem Fediai, Simon Kaiser, Manuel Konrad, Nicole Jung, Wolfgang Wenzel

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean CommissionBaden-Württemberg Stiftung
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOrganic electronicsElectronicsOrganic solar cellTransistorPhotovoltaicsIdentification (biology)Thin-film transistorComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringPhotovoltaic systemElectrical engineeringPolymerEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials for organic electronics are presently used in prominent applications, such as displays in mobile devices, while being intensely researched for other purposes, such as organic photovoltaics, large-area devices, and thin-film transistors. Many of the challenges to improve and optimize these applications are material related and there is a nearly infinite chemical space that needs to be explored to identify the most suitable material candidates. Established experimental approaches struggle with the size and complexity of this chemical space. Herein, the development of simulation methods is addressed, with a particular emphasis on predictive multiscale protocols, to complement experimental research in the identification of novel materials and illustrate the potential of these methods with a few prominent recent applications. Finally, the potential of machine learning and methods based on artificial intelligence is discussed to further accelerate the search for new materials.

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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations167
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207