Large‐Area Electrochromic Devices on Flexible Polymer Substrates with High Optical Contrast and Enhanced Cycling Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large‐area electrochromic devices (ECDs) based on a cathodically‐coloring, side chain‐modified poly(3,4‐ethylene dioxythiophene) (PEDOT) derivative and anodically‐coloring Prussian blue (PB) are assembled by a customized sheet‐to‐sheet (S2S) lamination process. The ECDs with two complementary switching “half‐cells”, based on flexible PET‐ITO substrates, offer enhanced optical properties in terms of visible light transmission change (4–53%), contrast ratio (CR = 93.4) and color neutrality (L* = 77.9, a* = −5.9, b* = −0.6) in the bleached state. The cycling stability is monitored for up to 10 000 switching cycles (97% charge retention). The reported optical, electrochemical, and in operando (in situ) spectroelectrochemical data are obtained from small laboratory‐scale ECDs (active area: 5 × 5 cm 2 ). These results, the homogeneity of the large‐area devices and the scalability of the S2S lamination process are confirmed by measurements on the large ECDs with an active area of 45 × 65 cm 2 . This large‐area electrochromic film technology with high optical contrast and enhanced cycling stability offers an excellent perspective for further development and scale‐up towards pilot production and the commercialization of flexible ECDs upon their unique materials and processing characteristics.
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".