MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080165611 · doi:10.1063/1.4766203

Temperature dependent elastic constants and ultimate strength of graphene and graphyne

2012· article· en· W2080165611 on OpenAlexaff
Tian-Jiao Shao, Bin Wen, Roderick Melnik, Shan Yao, Yoshiyuki Kawazoe, Yongjun Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)Wilfrid Laurier University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGraphyneGrapheneMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthThermal expansionElastic modulusModulusComposite materialWork (physics)Temperature coefficientLattice constantNegative thermal expansionCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsNanotechnologyPhysicsDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the first principles calculation combined with quasi-harmonic approximation in this work, we focus on the analysis of temperature dependent lattice geometries, thermal expansion coefficients, elastic constants, and ultimate strength of graphene and graphyne. For the linear thermal expansion coefficient, both graphene and graphyne show a negative region in the low temperature regime. This coefficient increases up to be positive at high temperatures. Graphene has superior mechanical properties with Young's modulus E = 350.01 N/m and ultimate tensile strength of 119.2 GPa at room temperature. Based on our analysis, it is found that graphene's mechanical properties have strong resistance against temperature increase up to 1000 K. Graphyne also shows good mechanical properties with Young's modulus E = 250.9 N/m and ultimate tensile strength of 81.2 GPa at room temperature, but graphyne's mechanical properties have a weaker resistance with respect to the increase of temperature than that of graphene.

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 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 score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations122
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207