MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002085995 · doi:10.1139/v08-066

Carbon and silicon substitution in (4, 4) aluminum nitride nanotube — Density functional study of <sup>27</sup>Al and <sup>14</sup>N electric field gradient tensors

2008· article· en· W2002085995 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Seif, Mehran Aghaie, Hossein Aghaie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDensity functional theoryChemistryNanotubeQuadrupoleNitrideComputational chemistryCarbon nanotubeElectric field gradientAtomic physicsCrystallographyNanotechnologyMaterials sciencePhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational study at the level of density functional theory (DFT) was performed to investigate the influence of Si and C substitution on the 14 N and 27 Al quadrupole coupling constants (C Q ) in the armchair single-walled aluminum nitride nanotube (SWAlNNT). To this aim, a 1 nm AlNNT consisting of 28 Al and 28 N atoms was considered in which both mouths of the nanotube are capped by hydrogen atoms. Additionally, two other forms of this model of AlNNT were considered in which five Si and five C atoms were substituted in place of the five Al and five N atoms, with two rings in the length of nanotube, like a wire, in the first form; and three Si and three C atoms were substituted in place of three Al and three N atoms as a central ring on the surface of the AlNNT in the second form. The calculated C Q values for three optimized AlNNT systems (raw and Si- and C-substituted) reveal diverse electronic environments in the above-mentioned systems. All the calculations were carried out using the Gaussian 98 software package.Key words: armchair nanotube, density functional theory, nuclear quadrupole resonance.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials ResearchFrench-language works237,207