MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206162503 · doi:10.1002/adma.202108932

Recent Progress on Self‐Healable Conducting Polymers

2022· review· en· W4206162503 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilPolytechnique MontréalDefence Research and Development CanadaCentre de Recherche sur les Systèmes Polymères et Composites à Haute Performance
KeywordsMaterials sciencePEDOT:PSSSelf-healingBiocompatibilityNanotechnologySelf-healing materialConductive polymerPolyanilinePolymerPolypyrroleElectronicsFlexibility (engineering)Smart materialComposite materialElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials able to regenerate after damage have been the object of investigation since the ancient times. For instance, self-healing concretes, able to resist earthquakes, aging, weather, and seawater have been known since the times of ancient Rome and are still the object of research. During the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in self-healing electronic materials, for applications in electronic skin (E-skin) for health monitoring, wearable and stretchable sensors, actuators, transistors, energy harvesting, and storage devices. Self-healing materials based on conducting polymers are particularly attractive due to their tunable high conductivity, good stability, intrinsic flexibility, excellent processability and biocompatibility. Here recent developments are reviewed in the field of self-healing electronic materials based on conducting polymers, such as poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (PEDOT), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyaniline (PANI). The different types of healing, the strategies adopted to optimize electrical and mechanical properties, and the various possible healing mechanisms are introduced. Finally, the main challenges and perspectives in the field are discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.257 · 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