Coupled Effects in Quantum Dot Nanostructures with Nonlinear Strain and\n Bridging Modelling Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate that the conventional application of linear models to the\nanalysis of optoelectromechanical properties of nanostructures in bandstructure\nengineering could be inadequate. The focus of the present paper is on a model\nbased on the coupled Schrodinger-Poisson system where we account consistently\nfor the piezoelectric effect and analyze the influence of different nonlinear\nterms in strain components. The examples given in this paper show that the\npiezoelectric effect contributions are essential and have to be accounted for\nwith fully coupled models. While in structural applications of piezoelectric\nmaterials at larger scales, the minimization of the full electromechanical\nenergy is now a routine in many engineering applications, in bandstructure\nengineering conventional approaches are still based on linear models with\nminimization of uncoupled, purely elastic energy functionals with respect to\ndisplacements. Generalizations of the existing models for bandstructure\ncalculations are presented in this paper in the context of coupled effects.\n
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".