MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advances and challenges of ceramic pigments for inkjet printing

2022· article· en· W4286252889 on OpenAlexafffund
E. Enríquez, J.J. Reinosa, V. Fuertes, J.F. Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueCeramics International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPigment Synthesis and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesCentro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico IndustrialUniversité Laval
KeywordsInkjet printingMaterials scienceInkwellCeramicProcess engineeringNanotechnologyOn demandRaw materialComputer scienceComposite materialEngineeringMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decades, the development of new ceramic pigments has been a very pursuit goal, mainly since the emergence of the inkjet technology applied to ceramic tiles. The digital decoration of industrial ceramics has contributed to a notable reduction of pigment consumption and an aesthetical decoration improvement, which makes more flexible the production processes, enhancing the reproducibility and cost savings. The nanopigment requirements of the inkjet technology demand submicronic particle size, ink rheology, stability, drop resolution, etc. Although the up-down procedure by micromilling contributed firstly to the particle size reduction of existing pigments, novel approaches are developed to obtain directly high-quality particles of suitable size with the aim of providing a higher optical efficiency. Thus, in this work, a comprehensive review about the existing crystalline structures, novel compositions, and synthesis methods as well as new coloring mechanisms is addressed, giving an overview of all these advances while considering the four-color process required for inkjet technology. The inkjet technology has the challenge of evolving towards a sustainable technology by eliminating the use of critical raw materials, removing the use of synthesis aid fluxes, and reducing the energy consumption, to approximate to a circular economy which is predominant in this sector.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations59
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCeramics InternationalSame topicPigment Synthesis and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207