Ultrathin Nanowires—A Materials Chemistry Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recent years have seen an explosive interest in one‐dimensional nanostructures, as testified by the number of citations this field has accrued; as customary, its blossoming was enabled by chemical breakthroughs that allowed the reproducible and affordable synthesis of such structures., The limitations of those syntheses was in the diameter of the nanowires that it could produce (hardly < 10 nm), and in the use of expensive and low‐yield techniques, such as chemical vapor deposition (CVD). This paper attempts to summarize the very recent chemical breakthroughs that have allowed the production of ultrathin nanowires, often in solution, and often in gram‐scale quantities. By no means is this a comprehensive coverage of the field, which can in part be found in other excellent reviews, , but a selection of those contributions that we feel would most help put this emerging field in perspective. We will review the various synthetic strategies, their pros and cons, and we will give our best guesses as to the future directions of the field and what we can expect from it.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it