MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383899748 · doi:10.1109/jflex.2023.3294168

Flexible Capacitive Kirigami Electrode: Experimental Investigation and Analytical Model

2023· article· en· W4383899748 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Morelli, Ghyslain Gagnon, Ricardo J. Zednik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Flexible Electronics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersMEDTEQ+Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCapacitive sensingElectronicsFlexibility (engineering)ElectrodeRobustness (evolution)FabricationComputer scienceWearable computerMaterials scienceFlexible electronicsNanotechnologyMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible electronics have recently garnered increasing attention due to their promise for a wide range of applications, from energy storage to flexible screens, over sensors to wearables. The trend in flexible electronics is toward the fabrication of devices composed of fully flexible materials and components. However, flexible devices still present many limitations, primarily due to the negative Poisson ratio of the materials used, which affects the dimensions and characteristics of the materials when bent or stretched. In this work, we propose a novel design for capacitive electrodes aimed to improve the flexibility of devices without affecting the properties of the materials involved: the design is based on Kirigami, the traditional Japanese art of paper cutting which, when applied to engineering, enables the shaping of stretchable and deformable structures by performing simple cuts on traditional substrates and films, thereby ensuring compatibility with existing manufacturing methods. We formulate a novel analytical model to explain in detail the behavior of the Kirigami electrode applied to an arbitrary nonflat surface. The efficacy of the novel design has been verified by means of capacitive measurements in different nonflat configurations: the results obtained confirm both the validity of the analytical model and the robustness of the novel Kirigami approach, with capacitive values increasing up to 115% for the Kirigami electrode compared to the non-Kirigami one.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.272
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

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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Flexible ElectronicsSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207