MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromechanical interactions in a carbon nanotube based thin film field emitting diode

2007· article· en· W2054723067 on OpenAlexaff
Niraj Sinha, D. Roy Mahapatra, Yu Sun, John T. W. Yeow, Roderick Melnik, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCarbon nanotubeCathodeField electron emissionDiodeCurrent (fluid)NanotechnologyField (mathematics)Current densityThin filmOptoelectronicsEngineering physicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have emerged as promising candidates for biomedical x-ray devices and other applications of field emission. CNTs grown/deposited in a thin film are used as cathodes for field emission. In spite of the good performance of such cathodes, the procedure to estimate the device current is not straightforward and the required insight towards design optimization is not well developed. In this paper, we report an analysis aided by a computational model and experiments by which the process of evolution and self-assembly (reorientation) of CNTs is characterized and the device current is estimated. The modeling approach involves two steps: (i) a phenomenological description of the degradation and fragmentation of CNTs and (ii) a mechanics based modeling of electromechanical interaction among CNTs during field emission. A computational scheme is developed by which the states of CNTs are updated in a time incremental manner. Finally, the device current is obtained by using the Fowler-Nordheim equation for field emission and by integrating the current density over computational cells. A detailed analysis of the results reveals the deflected shapes of the CNTs in an ensemble and the extent to which the initial state of geometry and orientation angles affect the device current. Experimental results confirm these effects.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207