Dual growth mode of boron nitride nanotubes in high temperature pressure laser ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The morphological analysis of the end of boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs) using high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) can provide valuable insight into the growth mechanism in high temperature pressure (HTP) laser ablation where the best quality of BNNT materials can be obtained so far. Two growth modes of BNNT coexisting during the synthesis process have been proposed based on HR-TEM observation and length analysis. One is the root growth mode, in which boron nitride (BN) species formed via the surface interaction between surrounding N2 molecules and boron nanodroplets incorporate into the tubular structure. Another mode called open-end growth mode means the prolongation of tube growth from the exposed BN edge surrounding the surface of boron nanodroplets which is constructed by the heterogeneous nucleation of absorbed BN radicals from the gas plume. The statistical data, the proportions of end structures and the length of BNNTs, could be fitted to two growth modes, and the open-end growth mode is found to be especially effective in producing longer nanotubes with a higher growth rate. The scientific understanding of the growth mechanism is believed to provide the control for optimized production of BNNTs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".