MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044001290 · doi:10.3390/nano10071422

Atomistic Modelling of Size-Dependent Mechanical Properties and Fracture of Pristine and Defective Cove-Edged Graphene Nanoribbons

2020· article· en· W3044001290 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniela Andrade Damasceno, R. K. N. D. Rajapakse, Euclides Mesquita

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZigzagMaterials scienceDuctility (Earth science)GrapheneGraphene nanoribbonsUltimate tensile strengthFracture (geology)Fracture toughnessToughnessWork (physics)Composite materialNanotechnologyCondensed matter physicsGeometryMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cove-edged graphene nanoribbons (CGNR) are a class of nanoribbons with asymmetric edges composed of alternating hexagons and have remarkable electronic properties. Although CGNRs have attractive size-dependent electronic properties their mechanical properties have not been well understood. In practical applications, the mechanical properties such as tensile strength, ductility and fracture toughness play an important role, especially during device fabrication and operation. This work aims to fill a gap in the understanding of the mechanical behaviour of CGNRs by studying the edge and size effects on the mechanical response by using molecular dynamic simulations. Pristine graphene structures are rarely found in applications. Therefore, this study also examines the effects of topological defects on the mechanical behaviour of CGNR. Ductility and fracture patterns of CGNR with divacancy and topological defects are studied. The results reveal that the CGNR become stronger and slightly more ductile as the width increases in contrast to normal zigzag GNR. Furthermore, the mechanical response of defective CGNRs show complex dependency on the defect configuration and distribution, while the direction of the fracture propagation has a complex dependency on the defect configuration and position. The results also confirm the possibility of topological design of graphene to tailor properties through the manipulation of defect types, orientation, and density and defect networks.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207