Graphenylene Nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new type of carbon nanotube, based on the graphenylene motif, is investigated using density functional and tight-binding methods. Analogous to conventional graphene-based nanotubes, a two-dimensional graphenylene sheet can be "rolled" into a seamless cylinder in armchair, zigzag, or chiral orientations. The resulting nanotube can be described using the familiar (n,m) nomenclature and possesses 4-, 6-, and 12-membered rings, with three distinct bond lengths, indicating a nonuniform distribution of the electron density. The dodecagonal rings form pores, 3.3 Å in diameter in graphenylene, which become saddle-shaped paraboloids in smaller-diameter nanotubes. Density functional theory predicts zigzag nanotubes to be small-band gap semiconductors, with a generally decreasing band gap as the diameter increases. Interestingly, the calculations predict metallic characteristics for armchair nanotubes with small diameters (<2 nm), and small-band gap semiconducting characteristics for larger-diameter ones. Graphenylene nanotubes with indices mod(n-m,3) = 0 exhibit a band gap approximately equal to that of armchair graphenylene nanotubes with comparable diameter.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".