MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nanotube field electron emission: principles, development, and applications

2015· article· en· W2126554098 on OpenAlexaff
Yunhan Li, Yonghai Sun, John T. W. Yeow

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField electron emissionThermionic emissionMaterials scienceCarbon nanotubeCommon emitterNanotechnologyEngineering physicsField (mathematics)NanotubeElectronOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing trend to apply field emission (FE) electron sources in vacuum electronic devices due to their fast response, high efficiency and low energy consumption compared to thermionic emission ones. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been regarded as a promising class of electron field emitters since the 1990s and have promoted the development of FE technology greatly because of their high electrical and thermal conductivity, chemical stability, high aspect ratio and small size. Recent studies have shown that FE from CNTs has the potential to replace conventional thermionic emission in many areas and that it exhibits advanced features in practical applications. Consequently, FE from nanotubes and applications thereof have attracted much attention. This paper provides a comprehensive review of both recent advances in CNT field emitters and issues related to applications of CNT based FE. FE theories and principles are introduced, and the early development of field emitters is related. CNT emitter types and their FE performance are discussed. The current situation for applications based on nanotube FE is reviewed. Although challenges remain, the tremendous progress made in CNT FE over the past ten years indicates the field's development potential.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations95
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207