MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280613782 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.05.009

3D printing of metallic structures using dopamine-integrated photopolymer

2022· article· en· W4280613782 on OpenAlexaff
Junfeng Xiao, Dongxing Zhang, Mingyue Zheng, Yang Bai, Yong Sun, Liwen Zhang, Qiuquan Guo, Jun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersScience, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality
KeywordsMaterials science3D printingNanotechnologyHigh resolutionDigital Light ProcessingComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After 3D printing technology has been advancing for several years, it still faces a huge challenge to fabricate 3D metal structures with high-resolution. In this study, a facile strategy of making high-resolution metallic structures based on the bioinspired 3D printing method was proposed. A bioinspired initiator, dopamine, was mixed into a 3D printing photopolymer, which could be conducive to fabricating metallic structures after direct surface-initiated electroless plating (ELP). Because of the intrinsic high resolution of the structures printed with the digital light processing (DLP) technology, complex objects with a feature resolution on the order of 137 μm were fabricated. Moreover, Cu- and Ni-parts of complex structures with a high resolution were demonstrated. By combining the advantages of 3D printing in structure design with those of surface modification assisted by catechol groups, the proposed method was confirmed as a cost-effective method to significantly enhance the capability of 3D printing, and it could endow the 3D printing technology with more practical applications in electronics, acoustic absorption, catalyst supports and other fields.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207