MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006413965 · doi:10.1142/s0219633614500217

First principles study on energetic, structural, and electronic properties of defective g-<font>C</font><sub>3</sub><font>N</font><sub>4</sub>-zz3 nanotubes

2014· article· en· W2006413965 on OpenAlexafffund
Seifollah Jalili, Farzad Molani, Jeremy Schofield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMXene and MAX Phase Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of OntarioCompute Canada
KeywordsVacancy defectAtom (system on chip)Density functional theoryNanotubeFontElectronic structureMaterials scienceRange (aeronautics)Atomic physicsCarbon nanotubeMolecular physicsChemistryCrystallographyNanotechnologyPhysicsComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The energetic, electronic and structural properties of defective g- C 3 N 4-zz3 nanotubes are considered based on spin-polarized density-functional theory calculations. Nine basic system types with vacancy defects are characterized by their stabilization energies and band gaps. It is found that the nitrogen atom denoted as N 3 is the most favorable atom for a vacancy defect. In all cases, local bond reconstruction occurs in the presence of vacancy defects. The role of C / N bond rotations on the above properties has been also investigated. The results show that N 1– C 3 bond rotation is the most favorable rotational defect. In addition, the electronic properties of the semiconducting g- C 3 N 4-zz3 nanotube with defects have been studied using band structure and density of states plots.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical and Computational ChemistrySame topicMXene and MAX Phase MaterialsFrench-language works237,207