MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032944113 · doi:10.1002/sia.2479

Hysteresis of pulsed characteristics of field emission from nanocarbon materials

2007· article· en· W2032944113 on OpenAlexfundno aff
А. В. Архипов, М. В. Мишин, I.V. Parygin

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsField electron emissionCommon emitterVoltageElectronAmplitudeElectric fieldHysteresisMaterials scienceAtomic physicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryOptoelectronicsCondensed matter physicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Characteristics of pulsed‐field electron emission from nanocarbon films were investigated in experiments with a wide (1.5–5 mm) quasiplanar test gap. Parameters of the applied voltage (amplitude, shape and duration of pulsed component and d.c. bias) were varied; the maximum peak voltage value amounted to 40–45 kV. Dynamic I – V plots measured in 10–100 µs pulses combined inherent features of field emission (linearity in Fowler–Nordheim (FN) coordinates) with strong hysteresis. For the explanation of the latter, a model of emission via intermediate electron energy states is proposed. The simple quantitative model excellently agrees with the measured characteristics for different emitter samples and over a broad range of voltage parameters, but fails to simulate the phenomenon of emission efficiency boosting by fast voltage drops, also observed in the experiment. A possible mechanism of this dynamic effect may consist in the redistribution of electrons among the different field focuses at the nonuniform emitter surface under the effect of a strong nonstationary electric field. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207