MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100981685

Field Emission Properties of Carbon Nanotube Arrays with Defects and Impurities

2008· article· en· W2100981685 on OpenAlexaff
D. Roy Mahapatra, Niraj Sinha, Roderick Melnik, JT W Yeow

Bibliographic record

VenueNOT FOUND REPOSITORY (Indian Institute of Science Bangalore) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeMaterials scienceImpurityField electron emissionElectric fieldCondensed matter physicsDegradation (telecommunications)Current densityNanotechnologyElectronChemical physicsChemistryElectronic engineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been found experimentally that the results related to the collective field emission performance of carbon nanotube (CNT) arrays show variability. The emission performance depends on the electronic structure of CNTs (especially their tips). Due to limitations in the synthesis process, production of highly pure and defect free CNTs is very difficult. The presence of defects and impurities affects the electronic structure of CNTs. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the effect of defects on the electronic structure, and hence, the field emission current. In this paper, we develop a modeling approach for \nevaluating the effect of defects and impurities on the overall field emission performance of a CNT array. We employ a concept of effective stiffness degradation for segments of CNTs, which is due to structural defects. Then, we incorporate the vacancy defects and charge impurity effects in our Green's function based approach. Simulation results indicate decrease in average current due to the presence of such defects and impurities.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOT FOUND REPOSITORY (Indian Institute of Science Bangalore)Same topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207