MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013472071 · doi:10.3390/coatings10040305

Graphene Synthesis by Inductively Heated Copper Foils: Reactor Design and Operation

2020· article· en· W3013472071 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katya Pashova, Elyes Dhaouadi, Ivaylo Hinkov, Ovidiu Brinza, Y. Roussigné, Manef Abderrabba, Samir Farhat

Bibliographic record

VenueCoatings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la FrancophonieEuropean CommissionAgence Nationale de la RechercheLaboratoire d'Excellence SEAM
KeywordsGrapheneMaterials scienceFOIL methodCopperRaman spectroscopyNucleationSubstrate (aquarium)Eddy currentAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialNanotechnologyMetallurgyChemistryOpticsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the design of a reactor to grow graphene via inductively heating of copper foils by radio frequency (RF) magnetic fields. A nearly uniform magnetic field induced by Helmholtz-like coils penetrates the copper foil generating eddy currents. While the frequency of the current is being rapidly varied, the substrate temperature increases from room temperature to ~1050 °C in 60 s. This temperature is maintained under Ar/H2 flow to reduce the copper, and under Ar/H2/CH4 to nucleate and grow the graphene over the entire copper foil. After the power cut-off, the temperature decreases rapidly to room temperature, stopping graphene secondary nucleation. Good quality graphene was obtained and transferred onto silicon, and coated with a 300 nm layer of SiO2 by chemical etching of the copper foil. After synthesis, samples were characterized by Raman spectroscopy. The design of the coils and the total power requirements for the graphene induction heating system were first estimated. Then, the effect of the process parameters on the temperature distribution in the copper foil was performed by solving the transient and steady-state coupled electromagnetic and thermal problem in the 2D domain. The quantitative effects of these process parameters were investigated, and the optimization analysis results are reported providing a root toward a scalable process for large-sized graphene.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoatingsSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207