MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557287048 · doi:10.1109/nano.2016.7751416

Study of ballasting carbon nanotube field emitter arrays with coaxial gate using doped silicon resistor

2016· article· en· W2557287048 on OpenAlexaff
Yunhan Li, Yonghai Sun, John T. W. Yeow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCommon emitterResistorOptoelectronicsCoaxialField electron emissionSiliconField emitter arrayCarbon nanotubeDopingCathodeCurrent densitySaturation currentElectrical engineeringVoltageNanotechnologyEngineeringPhysicsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the limitations of carbon nanotube (CNT) field emitter arrays (FEA) is the non-uniformity of total emission current contribution from each emitter due to geometry variation among CNT field emitters. We previously used a ballast resistor to ballast each emitter's current contribution to improve the reliability and stability of our CNT field emission (FE) cathode with coaxial gate. However, this approach has two main disadvantages: reduced FE current and enlarged power dissipation. In this paper, we improve the ballasting of our CNT FEA with coaxial gate using a doped silicon resistor. Each CNT field emitter is in series with a doped silicon resistor to avoid over current, based on the saturation of drift velocity in doped silicon. The FE current from each emitter can be limited at a desired current level based on the doping density and size of the doped silicon resistor. Those dominating emitter can be protected as gate voltage increases. The proposed approach is expected to improve our CNT cathode reliability and stability.

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207