MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1766268931 · doi:10.1063/1.4931676

Electron percolation in realistic models of carbon nanotube networks

2015· article· en· W1766268931 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis-Philippe Simoneau, Jérémie Villeneuve, Alain Rochefort

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeWavinessMaterials sciencePercolation thresholdPercolation (cognitive psychology)NanotubeMonte Carlo methodNanotechnologyVolume fractionCarbon nanotube actuatorsAspect ratio (aeronautics)ConductivityElectrical resistivity and conductivityComposite materialOptical properties of carbon nanotubesPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of penetrable and curved carbon nanotubes (CNT) on the charge percolation in three-dimensional disordered CNT networks have been studied with Monte-Carlo simulations. By considering carbon nanotubes as solid objects but where the overlap between their electron cloud can be controlled, we observed that the structural characteristics of networks containing lower aspect ratio CNT are highly sensitive to the degree of penetration between crossed nanotubes. Following our efficient strategy to displace CNT to different positions to create more realistic statistical models, we conclude that the connectivity between objects increases with the hard-core/soft-shell radii ratio. In contrast, the presence of curved CNT in the random networks leads to an increasing percolation threshold and to a decreasing electrical conductivity at saturation. The waviness of CNT decreases the effective distance between the nanotube extremities, hence reducing their connectivity and degrading their electrical properties. We present the results of our simulation in terms of thickness of the CNT network from which simple structural parameters such as the volume fraction or the carbon nanotube density can be accurately evaluated with our more realistic models.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207