3D Co‐Printing of 3D Electronics with a Dual Light Source Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study reports a new strategy—3D co‐printing technology by collaboratively employing a dual‐light curing process—to fabricate 3D electronics selectively either deposited on a free‐form surface or embedded within a bulk structure. The 3D co‐printing technology only involves one printing material, which works for both the construction of polymeric structures and the metallization process of conductive circuits resulted from the metal precursor loaded in photosensitive resin. The photoreduction of metal nanoparticles (NPs) can be efficiently activated with a second laser scanning. 3D co‐printing technology addresses the challenge of conventional methods requiring multiple materials deposition processes. The resultant conductive trace composed of NPs exhibits a superior resistivity as low as ≈6.12 µΩ m. The resistivity is further controllable ranging from 10 −6 to 10 Ω m through adjusting the material formulation and processing parameters. This study has demonstrated that the proposed 3D co‐printing is a high‐efficiency and low‐cost co‐printing approach which opens a new avenue of making 3D electronics.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it