MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2594133211 · doi:10.1117/12.2252523

Properties of cellulose nanocrystal films and powder in the terahertz frequency regime

2017· article· en· W2594133211 on OpenAlexafffund
B. N. Carnio, A. Y. Elezzabi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceDissipation factorPermittivityTerahertz radiationComposite materialDielectricRelative permittivityCelluloseDielectric lossOptoelectronicsChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative permittivity (real and imaginary component), absorption coefficient, and loss tangent of various cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) films, a dissolving pulp film, and a CNC powder are obtained by performing terahertz (THz) transmission spectroscopy experiments. The CNC films are constructed using different drying techniques (i.e. air-drying and freeze-drying) and are made from CNCs that have been extracted from various sources (i.e. hardwood, softwood, and dissolving pulp). Between frequencies of 0.2 and 1.5 THz, the real component of the permittivity is seen to range from 1.8-3.3 for the CNC films, suggesting that both the drying technique and CNC source material influence this dielectric property. Importantly, the CNC films are shown to exhibit relatively small THz absorption and loss tangent properties, such that CNC-based dielectric mirrors, waveguides, and transistors may be achieved.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies→French-language works237,207→