MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391518645 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.3c03176

Handling Nanoparticle Content in Nanocomposite Thin Films Deposited by Misty Plasma Processes through Controlled Flash Boiling Atomization

2024· article· en· W4391518645 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Chouteau, Luc Stafford, A. Granier, A. Goullet, Mireille Richard‐Plouet

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité de NantesUniversité de MontréalCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsNanoparticleEvaporationNanocompositeMaterials scienceChemical engineeringFlash evaporationBoilingDeposition (geology)NanotechnologySubstrate (aquarium)PlasmaNanofluidThin filmColloidChemistryChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Misty plasma processes based on colloidal solutions sprayed into low-pressure plasmas have recently shown great potential for multifunctional thin film deposition. In such processes, nanoparticle accumulation in ring-shaped structures remains the main obstacle to the synthesis of high-quality coatings containing abundant, small-scale, and evenly dispersed nanoparticles. These local buildups appear after a colloidal droplet evaporates from a substrate. Accordingly, controlling the droplets' size in the spray is of key importance to ensure a uniform nanoparticle content in the plasma-deposited nanocomposite film. In this work, it is shown that the use of more volatile solvents produces finer droplets on the substrate, thereby improving nanoparticle dispersion in the matrix. A one-dimensional evaporation model is further developed and used to show that, contrary to what one might expect, this result cannot be attributed to faster evaporation during droplet transport in the low-pressure plasma. Instead, a so-called "flash" boiling atomization mechanism is discussed to support the experimental findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207