MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011648299 · doi:10.3390/s20061660

Ionization Gas Sensor Using Suspended Carbon Nanotube Beams

2020· article· en· W3011648299 on OpenAlexafffund
Shivaram Arunachalam, Ricardo Izquierdo, Frédéric Nabki

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotoresistCarbon nanotubeIonizationMaterials scienceArgonHeliumOptoelectronicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyAtomic physicsLayer (electronics)ChemistryIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ionization sensor based on suspended carbon nanotubes (CNTs) was presented. A suspended CNT beam was fabricated by a low-temperature surface micromachining process using SU8 photoresist as the sacrificial layer. Application of a bias to the CNT beam generated very high non-linear electric fields near the tips of individual CNTs sufficient to ionize target gas molecules and initiate a breakdown current. The sensing mechanism of the CNT ionization sensor was discussed. The sensor response was tested in air, nitrogen, argon, and helium ambients. Each gas demonstrated a unique breakdown signature. Further, the sensor was tested with gaseous mixtures. The sensor exhibited good long-term stability and had comparable performance to other reported CNT-based ionization sensors in literature, which use high-temperature vapor deposition methods to grow CNTs. The sensor notably allowed for lower ionization voltages due to its reduced ionization gap size.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and SensorsFrench-language works237,207