MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268225219 · doi:10.1115/imece2014-38596

Characterization of Electrical Conductivity of Carbon Nanotube Composites

2014· article· en· W2268225219 on OpenAlexaff
Shen Gong, Zheng Zhu, Jun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeMaterials scienceComposite materialEpoxyElectrical resistivity and conductivityAgglomerateNanocompositePercolation thresholdComposite numberConductivityDispersion (optics)PolymerSurface modificationChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work investigated and characterized the electrical conductivity of carbon nanotubes (CNT)/polymer composites. Surface modification has been applied to improve the homogeneous dispersion of MWCNTs in epoxy. After treatment, MWCNTs were mixed into low viscosity epoxy matrix at room temperature. Dispersion and structural integrity of MWCNTs before and after surface modification were examined by SEM images. The dispensability of treated MWCNTs and electrical conductivity of nanocomposites are evaluated and also compared with MWCNTs/polymer composites in literature prepared using the same commercial MWCNTs. The electrical conductivity of MWCNTs and MWCNTs/epoxy composites were evaluated by the four-point probe method. The results of electrical property will lay a foundation for establishing the relationship between electrical resistance and strain of MWCNTs/epoxy composites. The results also confirm that reducing CNT agglomerate size can greatly improve the electrical conductivity of composite and decrease the percolation threshold.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207