MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995278808 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.9b03254

Carbon Isotopic Measurements of Nanotubes to Differentiate Carbon Sources

2019· article· en· W2995278808 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle M. G. Chartrand, Christopher T. Kingston, Benoît Simard, Zoltán Mester

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeCarbon fibersMethaneIsotopes of carbonMaterials scienceNatural gasNanotechnologyChemical engineeringChemistryEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistryTotal organic carbonComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable carbon isotope (δ(13C)) analysis can provide information concerning the starting materials and the production process of a material. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are produced using a variety of starting materials, catalysts, and production methods. The use of δ(13C) as a tool to infer the nature of starting materials to gain insight into the mechanics of CNT growth was evaluated. The production process of NRC’s SWCNT-1 was traced via the δ(13C) measurement of the available starting materials, intermediate products, and the final product. As isotopic fractionation is likely negligible at high temperatures, the δ(13C) value of the starting materials was reflected in the δ(13C) value of the final CNT product. For commercially available CNTs, the estimated δ(13C) values of identified starting materials were related to the δ(13C) signatures of CNTs. Using this information and the δ(13C) values of CNTs, the nature of unknown carbon sources was inferred for some samples. The use of δ(13C) analysis may be used as a tracer to differentiate between those processes that use relatively 13C-depleted carbon source(s) such as carbon monoxide, methane, or natural gas, and those that do not.

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)0.000
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207