MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327384221 · doi:10.1109/nano.2014.6968059

Characterization of the internal parameters of nanostructured light induced thermionic emission devices for energy conversion

2014· article· en· W2327384221 on OpenAlexaff
Amir H. Khoshaman, Mike Chang, Harrison D. E. Fan, Andrew T. Koch, Alireza Nojeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Radiation and Cooling Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermionic emissionCommon emitterVoltageMaterials scienceRange (aeronautics)LaserCharacterization (materials science)Current (fluid)Computational physicsFlexibility (engineering)OptoelectronicsOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringNanotechnologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method to calculate the output current-voltage characteristics of a light induced thermionic emission device. This approach improves on the existing methods by having both a higher precision and higher range in evaluating the associated integrals, resulting in simulated device characteristics with a wider range of parameters. This method represents a significant step towards the characterization of emergent devices due to the unknowns involved in their internal parameters. More importantly, its high numerical precision and flexibility allow one to solve the reverse problem and evaluate the internal parameters of the device such as workfunction, from experimental current-voltage curves. As an experimental case, a carbon nanotube forest was used as the emitter of a thermionic device and locally heated to about 2,000 K using a 50-mW focused laser light. The current-voltage characteristics were measured and fitted to simulation data to obtain the internal parameters of the device. The obtained parameters were consistent with the values obtained with other methods. The estimation of these parameters was previously not feasible with one single type of experiment.

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 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

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 topicThermal Radiation and Cooling TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207