MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979463846 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.88.125430

Effect of edge reconstruction and electron-electron interactions on quantum transport in graphene nanoribbons

2013· article· en· W1979463846 on OpenAlexaff
S. Ihnatsenka, George Kirczenow

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneElectronCondensed matter physicsGraphene nanoribbonsConductanceRibbonDensity functional theoryElectron transport chainMaterials scienceTight bindingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMolecular physicsPhysicsElectronic structureChemistryNanotechnologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present numerical studies of conduction in graphene nanoribbons with reconstructed edges based on the standard tight-binding model of the graphene and the extended H\"uckel model of the reconstructed defects. We performed atomic geometry relaxation of individual defects using density functional theory and then explicitly calculated the tight-binding parameters used to model electron transport in graphene with reconstructed edges. The calculated conductances reveal strong backscattering and electron-hole asymmetry depending on the edge and defect type. This is related to an additional defect-induced band whose wave function is poorly matched to the propagating states of the pristine ribbon. We find a transport gap to open near the Dirac point and to scale inversely with the ribbon width, similarly to what has been observed in experiments. We predict the largest transport gap to occur for armchair edges with Stone-Wales defects, while heptagon and pentagon defects cause about equal backscattering for electrons and holes, respectively. Choosing the heptagon defect as an example, we show that although electron interactions in the Hartree approximation cause accumulation of charge carriers on the defects, surprisingly, their effect on transport is to reduce carrier backscattering by the defects and thus to enhance the conductance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207