MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082515000 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.195442

Zipping and unzipping of nanoscale carbon structures

2011· article· en· W2082515000 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Berashevich, Tapash Chakraborty

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZigzagMaterials scienceCarbon nanotubeGrapheneMerge (version control)NanotechnologyNanoscopic scaleCarbon fibersAnnealing (glass)Chemical physicsComposite materialChemistryComposite numberComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate theoretically that hydrogenation and annealing applied to nanoscale carbon structures play a crucial role in determining the final shape of the system. In particular, graphene flakes characterized by linear and nonhydrogenated zigzag or armchair edges have a high propensity to merge into a bigger flake or a nanotube (the formation of a single carbon-carbon bond lowers the total energy of the system by up to 6.22 eV). Conversely, a line of ${\mathit{sp}}^{2}$ carbon bonds (common for pure carbon structures such as graphene or a carbon nanotube) converted into ${\mathit{sp}}^{3}$ type by hydrogenation shows an ability to disassemble the original structure by cutting it along the line of the modified bonds. These structural transformations provide us with an understanding of the behavior of mobile carbon structures in solution and a distinct scenario for how to preserve the original structure, which is a crucial issue for their application in carbon-based electronics.

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)0.000
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207