Electronic and optical properties of pristine and boron–nitrogen doped graphyne nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First principle calculations with generalized gradient approximation were carried out to analyse the electronic and optical properties of armchair and zigzag graphyne nanotubes (GNTs). The possible application of these NTs in optoelectronic devices was also investigated. The GNTs were doped with boron (B) and nitrogen (N) atoms and the resulting band gap tuning was studied with respect to the B/N substitution site and increasing diameter of the NTs. The basis of this variation was examined using the partial density of states and crystal orbital Hamilton population analysis. A decreasing trend in the optical response was seen with an increase in the diameter of the NTs. The reported systems showed anisotropic behaviour in the low-energy region. The origin of the optical responses was monitored from the infrared to the UV region depending on the doping site of the B/N. As a result of the large band gap, low reflectivity and low refractive index, B/N GNTs have been established as a suitable system for novel optoelectronic devices. The strong absorption peaks in the UV region mean that they are a good choice for use in UV light protection.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".