MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984790485 · doi:10.1109/ivnc.2013.6624743

Field-emission from carbon nanotube cones fabricated by micro-electro-discharge machining

2013· article· en· W1984790485 on OpenAlexaff
Mehran Vahdani Moghaddam, Mirza Saquib Sarwar, Zhiming Xiao, Masoud Dahmardeh, Kenichi Takahata, Alireza Nojeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeField electron emissionMaterials scienceField emission displayCommon emitterLithographyNanotechnologyNanotubeOptoelectronicsPolishingElectrical discharge machiningMachiningComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field-emitters based on patterned carbon nanotube (CNT) arrays have promising properties. For example, they operate at low voltages and produce significant current. To pattern carbon nanotube arrays into various shapes, the typical approach consists of using lithography to pattern the catalyst prior to nanotube growth. However, this technique enables only two-dimensional patterning, where the height of the nanotubes remains unchanged. It is highly desirable to tailor the shape of CNT arrays in three dimensions (3D) in order to optimize the field emission performance of the arrays, including height control and creating angled surfaces. Here, we report on the polishing of the top surface of a CNT forest pillar and creation of cone-type structures in CNT arrays, similar in shape to the emitters in a conventional field-emitter array based on bulk metals. For this, we use dry micro-electro-discharge machining (μEDM) in oxygen ambient. We also report the results of field-emission experiments from them and show that the beam resulting from the CNT cone produces a sharp, uniform emission spot on the phosphor screen in field-emission microscopy.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207