MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025420358 · doi:10.1038/s41699-020-00164-2

Direct imaging, three-dimensional interaction spectroscopy, and friction anisotropy of atomic-scale ripples on MoS2

2020· article· en· W3025420358 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj 2D Materials and Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAnisotropyAtomic force microscopyMolybdenum disulfideForce spectroscopyCharacterization (materials science)Nanoscopic scaleSpectroscopyKelvin probe force microscope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Theory predicts that two-dimensional (2D) materials may only exist in the presence of out-of-plane deformations on atomic length scales, frequently referred to as ripples. While such ripples can be detected via electron microscopy, their direct observation via surface-based techniques and characterization in terms of interaction forces and energies remain limited, preventing an unambiguous study of their effect on mechanical characteristics, including but not limited to friction anisotropy. Here, we employ high-resolution atomic force microscopy to demonstrate the presence of atomic-scale ripples on supported samples of few-layer molybdenum disulfide (MoS 2 ). Three-dimensional force/energy spectroscopy is utilized to study the effect of ripples on the interaction landscape. Friction force microscopy reveals multiple symmetries for friction anisotropy, explained by studying rippled sample areas as a function of scan size. Our experiments contribute to the continuing development of a rigorous understanding of the nanoscale mechanics of 2D materials.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj 2D Materials and ApplicationsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207