Characterizing Edge and Stacking Structures of Exfoliated Graphene by Photoelectron Diffraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two-dimensional C 1s photoelectron intensity angular distributions (PIADs) and spectra of exfoliated graphene flakes and crystalline graphite were measured using a focused soft X-ray beam. Suitable graphene samples were selected by thickness characterization using Raman spectromicroscopy after transferring mechanically exfoliated graphene flakes onto a 90-nm-thick SiO2 film. In every PIAD, a Kagomé interference pattern was observed, particularly clearly in the monolayer graphene PIAD. Its origin is the overlap of the diffraction rings formed by an in-plane C–C bond honeycomb lattice. Thus, the crystal orientation of each sample can be determined. In the case of bilayer graphene, PIAD was threefold-symmetric, while those of monolayer graphene and crystalline graphite were sixfold-symmetric. This is due to the stacking structure of bilayer graphene. From comparisons with the multiple scattering PIAD simulation results, the way of layer stacking as well as the termination types in the edge regions of bilayer graphene flakes were determined. Furthermore, two different C 1s core levels corresponding to the top and bottom layers of bilayer graphene were identified. A chemical shift to a higher binding energy by 0.25 eV for the bottom layer was attributed to interfacial interactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".