MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210669224 · doi:10.1177/00405175211069880

Recently developed electrospinning methods: a review

2022· review· en· W4210669224 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTextile Research Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrospinningCentrifugeSpinningMaterials scienceProduction rateNanofiberJet (fluid)BubbleProcess engineeringNanotechnologyMechanical engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringPolymerPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional electrospinning is an effective and versatile method employed for fabricating nanofibers. However, the relatively low production rate is the major challenge of electrospinning as an economic and scalable method. Recently, several approaches have been developed to ensure the high production rate of nanofibers. This paper has reviewed the latest developed electrospinning methods, such as multi-jet, needleless, bubble, centrifuge and electro-centrifuge systems. Furthermore, the jet formation in centrifugal spinning, as well as electro-centrifuge systems, was investigated through experimental and numerical analysis.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.002

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.241 · 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