MODELOS GEOMÉTRICOS EN EL ESTUDIO DE NANOTUBOS DE CARBONO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon nanotubes have become in the last two decades in greatest elements both in theoretical investigation as technological developments. From theoretical point of view, a model is necessary that describe on the best possible its physical properties, thus an approximation to the geometry is important for a physical description. In this paper in addition to a geometric model revision to the nanotube, we are going to do a description to the most interesting technological developments. In the theoretical models of nanotube geometric description, the first is the called zone folding method. This method consist in deal the nanotube like a mesh piece of graphen to which is given a periodicity conditions, so when it is folded it reproduce all the carbon atoms positions. The second method, consist in propose the atoms in the nanotube like places in a cylindrical structure. In this model the vectors used to the description are obtained from the particular geometry in each nanotube and write them in cylindrical coordinates. Finally, the third method is based in the nanotube description from all its possible symmetries, dealing the nanotube as a structure that has a particular symmetry along one direction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".