MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165341099 · doi:10.3390/polym13101650

Numerical Methods in Studies of Liquid Crystal Elastomers

2021· review· en· W3165341099 on OpenAlexaff
M. Soltani, Kaamran Raahemifar, Arman Nokhosteen, Farshad Moradi Kashkooli, Elham Lori Zoudani

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials and Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodComputer scienceLiquid crystalVariety (cybernetics)Monte Carlo methodCategorizationField (mathematics)ElastomerStrengths and weaknessesMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceBiochemical engineeringNanotechnologyArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid crystal elastomers (LCEs) are a type of material with specific features of polymers and of liquid crystals. They exhibit interesting behaviors, i.e., they are able to change their physical properties when met with external stimuli, including heat, light, electric, and magnetic fields. This behavior makes LCEs a suitable candidate for a variety of applications, including, but not limited to, artificial muscles, optical devices, microscopy and imaging systems, biosensor devices, and optimization of solar energy collectors. Due to the wide range of applicability, numerical models are needed not only to further our understanding of the underlining mechanics governing LCE behavior, but also to enable the predictive modeling of their behavior under different circumstances for different applications. Given that several mainstream methods are used for LCE modeling, viz. finite element method, Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics, and the growing interest and reliance on computer modeling for predicting the opto-mechanical behavior of complex structures in real world applications, there is a need to gain a better understanding regarding their strengths and weaknesses so that the best method can be utilized for the specific application at hand. Therefore, this investigation aims to not only to present a multitude of examples on numerical studies conducted on LCEs, but also attempts at offering a concise categorization of different methods based on the desired application to act as a guide for current and future research in this field.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.347 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdvanced Materials and MechanicsFrench-language works237,207