MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029069016 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.193405

Luttinger parameter<i>g</i>for metallic carbon nanotubes and related systems

2002· article· en· W2029069016 on OpenAlexaff
William Que

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B, Condensed matter · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuttinger liquidCarbon nanotubeZigzagCondensed matter physicsFermi levelMaterials scienceRandom phase approximationCarbon fibersPhysicsPhase (matter)Quantum mechanicsNanotechnologyElectronMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The random phase approximation (RPA) theory is used to derive the Luttinger parameter g for metallic carbon nanotubes. The results are consistent with the Tomonaga-Luttinger models. All metallic carbon nanotubes, regardless if they are armchair tubes, zigzag tubes, or chiral tubes, should have the same Luttinger parameter g. However, a (10,10) carbon peapod should have a smaller g value than a (10,10) carbon nanotube. Changing the Fermi level by applying a gate voltage has only a second order effect on the g value. RPA theory is a valid approach to calculate plasmon energy in carbon nanotube systems, regardless if the ground state is a Luttinger liquid or Fermi liquid.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B, Condensed matterSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207