MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416884460 · doi:10.37665/srrtfip90689

The Use of Graphene to Replace Silver in Electricaly Conductive Adhesives - A Study on Electrical Conductivity and Mechanical Properties

2015· article· W4416884460 on OpenAlexaff
Behnam Meschi Amoli, Josh Trinidad, Y. Zhou, Boxin Zhao, Alex Chen, John Persic, Robert Lyn

Bibliographic record

VenueSoldering and Reliability Conferences · 2015
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsHain Celestial (Canada)Public Health OntarioUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneElectrical resistivity and conductivityElectrical conductorAdhesiveNanocompositeModulusDispersion (optics)Filler (materials)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this talk, we will present the research progress on the use of graphene to reduce the amount of silver in electrically conductive adhesives. The graphene nanosheets were first modified using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and used as auxiliary fillers inside the conventional electrically conductive adhesive (ECA) composite. Using the SDS modification approach, we were able to facilitate the dispersion of graphene inside the composite, which resulted in a significant electrical conductivity improvement of ECAs at noticeably low filler content. Addition of 1.5 wt% SDS-modified graphene into the conventional ECA with 10 wt% silver flakes led to a relatively low electrical resistivity of 35 Ω.cm, while at least 40 wt% of silver flakes was required for the conventional and the hybrid ECAs with non-modified graphene to be electrically conductive. A highly conductive ECA with very low bulk resistivity of 1.6 × 10 -5 Ω.cm was prepared by adding 1.5 wt% of SDS-modified graphene into the conventional ECA with 80 wt% silver flakes. The mechanical properties of the ECA were investigated using the Hertzian indentation method and found that SDS-stabilized graphene nanosheets increased the modulus of the nanocomposites at much lower weight percentages. However, once it passes a certain weight percent, the modulus begins to quickly decrease.

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)0.000
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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoldering and Reliability ConferencesSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207