MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139606447 · doi:10.1139/v10-146

Fabrication of boron carbonitride (BCN) nanotubes and giant fullerene cages

2010· article· en· W2139606447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guifang Sun, Faming Gao, Li Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh-resolution transmission electron microscopyNanocagesFullereneTransmission electron microscopyChemistryFourier transform infrared spectroscopyCarbon nanotubeElectron diffractionInfrared spectroscopyElectron energy loss spectroscopyCrystallographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyMaterials scienceDiffractionChemical engineeringOpticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boron carbonitride (BCN) nanotubes have been successfully prepared using NH 4 Cl, KBH 4 , and ZnBr 2 as the reactants at 480 °C for 12 h by a new benzene-thermal approach in a N 2 atmosphere. As its by-product, a new form of carbon regular hexagonal nanocages are observed. The samples are characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), transmission electron diffraction (TED), electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS), and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). The prepared nanotubes have uniform outer diameters in the range of 150 to 500 nm and a length of up to several micrometerss. The novel carbon hexagonal nanocages have a typical size ranging from 100 nm to 1.5 µm, which could be the giant fullerene cages of [Formula: see text] (N = 17∼148). So, high fullerenes are observed for the first time. The influences of reaction temperature and ZnBr 2 on products and the formation mechanism of BCN nanotubes are discussed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicBoron and Carbon Nanomaterials ResearchFrench-language works237,207