Polyvinylidene fluoride nanofibers obtained by electrospinning and blowspinning: Electrospinning enhances the piezoelectric <scp>β‐phase</scp> – myth or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Considerable effort has been devoted to improving the properties of PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride), arguably the most technologically important piezoelectric polymer. Electrospinning has been found to be a particularly effective method of producing PVDF nanofibers with superior piezoelectric properties due to the resulting exceptionally high fraction of the piezoelectrically active crystalline β‐phase. It is typically assumed that the high external electric fields applied during electrospinning enhance the formation of this β‐phase, with the confused literature offering various unsatisfactory mechanistic explanations. However, by comparing PVDF nanofibers produced by two different processes (electrospinning and blowspinning), we show that the electric field is entirely unnecessary; indeed, the crystallization dynamics are principally driven by the applied mechanical stress, as evidenced by structurally identical 200 nm diameter PVDF fibers produced with and without external electric fields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".