Density Functional Study of Interaction of Atomic Pt with Pristine and Stone−Wales-Defective Single-Walled Boron Nitride Nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between atomic Pt and pristine or Stone−Wales-defective (5,5) single-walled boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs) were studied using density functional theory (DFT) with truncated nanotube models. The binding energy of Pt on a pristine BNNT is about 20 kcal/mol with little dependency on the binding site. On the other hand, when the Stone−Wales (SW) defect is presented, the atomic Pt is preferentially inserted between the B−B bond in the SW defect region with a large binding energy of 58 kcal/mol. On an SW-defective BNNT, the atomic Pt, even placed away from the defect site, may eventually (thermodynamically) move toward the defect area until being trapped between the B−B bond, and the final adduct has decreased reactivity toward both electrophiles and nucleophiles compared with Pt adsorption to pristine BNNTs. Pt adsorption on pure or SW-defective BNNTs makes the hosting nanotube wide-gap semiconductive by introducing the valence states of the absorbed Pt into the band gap of the nanotube. In comparison, the Pt atom filling into a B or N single vacancy on a BNNT changes the electronic structure of the vacancy-defective BNNT so dramatically that the Pt-doped BNNT becomes semiconducting with improved reactivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".