Size-dependent hardness of five-fold twin structured Ag nanowires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the size dependent hardness of silver nanowires with a five-fold twin structure was examined using nanoindentation. As the diameter of the nanowires is reduced, the five-fold twin boundaries restrict the dislocation motion, and therefore a size dependent plasticity is expected for these uniquely structured nanowires. The polyol reduction method with modifications was used to synthesize silver nanowires with different diameters in the range of 70 nm to 144 nm. The nanoindentation experiments were performed on silver nanowires deposited on a stiff MgO substrate, and the resulting h, P, and S data were analyzed using the analytical double contact model for nanowire indentation. The hardness of the nanowires determined using the double contact model showed an increase in the hardness with reduction in the diameter of the nanowires, as expected due to the presence of the twin boundaries. The hardness values determined using the analytical double contact model compared favorably to the hardness values calculated from the contact areas that were extracted from finite element method simulations of an elastic indentation into the silver nanowires on the MgO substrate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".