Processing Solvents, Poling Conditions, and Fully Solution‐Processed Polymeric Multilayer Piezoelectric Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Our group has recently demonstrated the first fully solution‐processed polymeric multilayer piezoelectric devices. The key challenge, that is, the effective control of the redissolution issue, has been overcome using a solvent that offers adequate solubility but extremely slow dissolution for the piezoelectric polymer, poly(vinylidene fluoride‐trifluoroethylene) [P(VDF‐TrFE)]. Several qualified solvents have been identified. Here, we comparatively study the effects of solvents on piezoelectric performance and production yield, for choosing the right solvent for fully solution‐processed multilayer piezoelectric devices. Each solvent exhibits distinct yield dependence on drying temperature, but the maximal yields achieved are independent of processing solvents. The solvents are also found to be interchangeable in terms of piezoelectric performance. The drying temperature and final annealing temperatures are identified to be decisive factors. The former only impacts the yield, and the latter only impacts the performance. The three parameters that define a poling condition are all investigated for the first time. A procedure enabling a fast identification of the right poling condition is proposed. Fully solution‐processed P(VDF‐TrFE) multilayer piezoelectric devices are prepared using the optimized conditions, and the dependence of the performance and yield on the number of layers is demonstrated. This work lays the foundation for producing such devices for practical applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".