MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882849998 · doi:10.1139/p11-124

The polylogarithm and the Lambert <i>W</i> functions in thermoelectrics

2011· article· en· W1882849998 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Muralikrishna Molli, K. Venkataramaniah, S. R. Valluri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolylogarithmPhysicsDegenerate energy levelsFigure of meritFunction (biology)Thermal conductivitySemiconductorThermoelectric effectSeebeck coefficientApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisThermodynamicsQuantum mechanicsRiemann zeta functionMathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we determine the conditions for the extremum of the figure of merit, θ 2 , in a degenerate semiconductor for thermoelectric (TE) applications. We study the variation of the function θ 2 with respect to the reduced chemical potential μ* using relations involving polylogarithms of both integral and nonintegral orders. We present the relevant equations for the thermopower, thermal, and electrical conductivities that result in optimizing θ 2 and obtaining the extremum equations. We discuss the different cases that arise for various values of r, which depends on the type of carrier scattering mechanism present in the semiconductor. We also present the important extremum conditions for θ 2 obtained by extremizing the TE power factor and the thermal conductivity separately. In this case, simple functional equations, which lead to solutions in terms of the Lambert W function, result. We also present some solutions for the zeros of the polylogarithms. Our analysis allows for the possibility of considering the reduced chemical potential and the index r of the polylogarithm as complex variables.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.142
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207