MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147398086 · doi:10.1186/1556-276x-6-291

Shock-induced breaking of the nanowire with the dependence of crystallographic orientation and strain rate

2011· article· en· W2147398086 on OpenAlexaff
Fenying Wang, Ya-Jun Gao, Tiemin Zhu, Jianwei Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanowireAnisotropyNanochemistryStrain rateStrain (injury)Condensed matter physicsOrientation (vector space)NanotechnologyCrystallographyComposite materialOpticsPhysicsChemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The failure of the metallic nanowire has raised concerns due to its applied reliability in nanoelectromechanical system. In this article, the breaking failure is studied for the [100], [110], and [111] single-crystal copper nanowires at different strain rates. The statistical breaking position distributions of the nanowires have been investigated to give the effects of strain rate and crystallographic orientation on micro-atomic fluctuation in the symmetric stretching of the nanowires. When the strain rate is less than 0.26% ps-1, macro-breaking position distributions exhibit the anisotropy of micro-atomic fluctuation. However, when the strain rate is larger than 3.54% ps-1, the anisotropy is not obvious because of strong symmetric shocks.

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscale Research LettersSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207