MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967221958 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47777-2

The Electro-Optical Performance of Silver Nanowire Networks

2019· article· en· W2967221958 on OpenAlexafffund
Hugh G. Manning, C. G. Rocha, Colin O’ Callaghan, M. S. Ferreira, John J. Boland

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersTrinity College DublinScience Foundation IrelandWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsNanowireComputer scienceOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Networks of metallic nanowires have the potential to meet the needs of next-generation device technologies that require flexible transparent conductors. At present, there does not exist a first principles model capable of predicting the electro-optical performance of a nanowire network. Here we combine an electrical model derived from fundamental material properties and electrical equations with an optical model based on Mie theory scattering of light by small particles. This approach enables the generation of analogues for any nanowire network and then accurately predicts, without the use of fitting factors, the optical transmittance and sheet resistance of the transparent electrode. Predictions are validated using experimental data from the literature of networks comprised of a wide range of aspect ratios (nanowire length/diameter). The separation of the contributions of the material resistance and the junction resistance allows the effectiveness of post-deposition processing methods to be evaluated and provides a benchmark for the minimum attainable sheet resistance. The predictive power of this model enables a material-by-design approach, whereby suitable systems can be prescribed for targeted technology applications.

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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNanomaterials and Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207