NbN and NbS<SUB>2</SUB> Nanobelt Arrays: <I>In-Situ</I> Conversion Preparation and Field-Emission Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NbN nanobelt arrays were prepared by an in-situ conversion of aligned NbS3 nanobelts in the flowing NH3 at 950 degrees C, meanwhile, NbS2 nanobelt arrays were produced by a pyrolysis of aligned NbS3 nanobelts in the flowing argon atmosphere. The morphology and size of those nanobelts are close to the NbS3 nanobelt precursors, having a reactangular section of about 11 x 250 - 520 x 3100 nm2, and a length of about 120 microm. The microstructures were characterized by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). Magnetic measurements showed that the NbN nanobelts have superconductivity below 14.1 K. Field-emission experiments showed that the turn-on and threshold fields of the NbN nanobelt arrays (which are defined to be the macroscopic field to produce a current density of 10 microA/cm2 and 1 mA/cm2, respectively) are 0.61 and 2.3 V/microm, respectively, whereas the turn-on and threshold fields of the NbS2 nanobelt arrays are 0.61 and 3.5 V/microm, respectively, suggesting that they are decent field emitters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".