MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087969825 · doi:10.1149/2162-8777/abb8ef

Review—Two-Dimensional Boron Carbon Nitride: A Comprehensive Review

2020· review· en· W3087969825 on OpenAlexafffund
Shayan Angizi, Md Ali Akbar, Maryam Darestani-Farahani, Peter Kruse

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsMaterials scienceGrapheneNanotechnologyCarbon fibersBoron nitrideCarbon nitrideTernary operationSupercapacitorFabricationLithium (medication)BoronNitrideSemiconductorHexagonal boron nitrideEngineering physicsCapacitanceComputer scienceOptoelectronicsCatalysisChemistryElectrodePhysical chemistryPhysicsComposite numberPhotocatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-dimensional Boron Carbon Nitride (BCN) is a complex ternary system that has recently attracted great attention due to its ability to be tuned over a range of chemical, optical and electrical properties. In the last decade, BCN structures have been extensively researched for many energy-related applications, from supercapacitors and lithium ion batteries to electrocatalysts and sensors. However, the stoichiometry dependent properties of BCN as well as the difficult-to-control domain distribution of boron, carbon, and nitrogen atoms throughout the planes result in challenges for the fabrication of devices with reproducible performance. This review starts by discussing the fundamental properties of BCN as compared to its parent compounds (hexagonal boron nitride and graphene). Then the fabrication methods are comprehensively reviewed, analyzing each method’s advantages and shortcomings. This is followed by an explanation of BCN characteristics while particular attention is given to the surface chemistry and engineering of nanosheets. Applications of two dimensional BCN will also be reviewed to illustrate its significance over the last decade. Lastly, future trends and prospects of BCN structures will be reviewed, indicating on-going areas of research and the possible integration of BCN in semiconductor and energy-related applications.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Journal of Solid State Science and TechnologySame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207