MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147671742 · doi:10.1002/sia.3827

Methane chemical vapor deposition on transition metal/GaAs samples – a possible route to Haeckelite carbon nanotubes?

2011· article· en· W2147671742 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Burek, T. Hesjedal

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeChemical vapor depositionRaman spectroscopyMethaneTransition metalCarbon fibersSemiconductorMetalMaterials scienceChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Deposition (geology)NanotechnologyChemistryOptoelectronicsOrganic chemistryComposite materialMetallurgyCatalysisOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a systematic study of atmospheric chemical vapor deposition growth of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on patterned, transition metal/GaAs samples employing methane as the carbon feedstock. Controlled CNT growth was found to occur from the exposed metal‐semiconductor interface, rather than from the metal or semiconductor surfaces themselves. A fast sample loading system allowed for a minimization of the exposure to high temperatures, thereby preventing excessive sample damage. The optimum growth temperature for CrNi/GaAs interfaces is 700 °C (at a methane flow rate of 700 sccm). Possible growth scenarios involving the Ni–As–Ga system and its interaction with C is discussed. Raman spectroscopy of the CNTs revealed the presence of pentagon–heptagon defects. Closer analysis of the spectra points towards a mixture of so‐called Haeckelite CNTs. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207