Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanoenergetics has the potential to become the next generation of explosives and propellants. Nano-explosives often show better performances in terms of energy release, ignition and mechanical properties compared to their bulk counterparts. In addition to monomolecular explosives such as nano-TNT and nano-RDX, diverse energetic nanocomposites have been developed, including the nanometer-sized versions of conventional thermites (nanothermites) and those using carbon-based nanomaterials (e.g., fullerenes and carbon nanotubes). While the unique characteristics of nanomaterials allow groundbreaking applications, they also result in distinct environmental fate, transport and toxicity. The high surface to volume ratio and reactivity of nanomaterials make them highly dynamic in environmental systems. Once released in the environment, nanoenergetic chemicals will undergo transportation and transformation processes including dissolution, aggregation, adsorption, photolysis and biotransformation, which will also affect their persistence and bioavailability. This review was conducted to better understand the potential environmental fate and ecological impact of the use of nanoenergetics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".