MOF‐Based Electromagnetic Shields Multiscale Design: Nanoscale Chemistry, Microscale Assembly, and Macroscale Manufacturing
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 The effects of electromagnetic (EM) radiation have received increased attention, closely associated with the widespread use of electronics and wireless communication. A significant development in the area is the recent adoption of metal‐organic frameworks (MOFs) to effectively enable electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding. MOF tunable molecular scaffold architecture offers numerous pathways to generate customizable magnetic and electrical properties, which are prerequisite materials characteristics for efficient EMI shielding performance. Their flexibility in terms of structural design, accompanied by high porosity and large specific surface area, makes MOFs excellent candidates to shield EM waves at multiple scales. Herein, the crucial role of molecular‐, nano‐, micro‐, and macro‐scale structural design is reviewed in accordance with the shielding performance of MOFs. The current design strategies of MOF‐based EMI shields are systematically outlined, and the shielding mechanisms are also expounded based on their structural features. The factors that hinder the widespread utilization of functional MOF‐derived EMI shields are also examined. Future research directions are unveiled for the rational design of the next‐generation MOF‐based EMI shields to address the pressing EM radiation concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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