A machine learning approach for the automated classification of bulk sp<sup>2</sup> and sp<sup>3</sup> carbon materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Principal component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) were used to classify different types of carbon material based on their Raman spectra. The selected reference materials were highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), diamond‐like carbon (DLC), glassy carbon (GC), hydrogenated graphite‐like carbon (GLCH), and hydrogenated polymer‐like carbon (PLCH). These materials vary in crystallinity, predominant carbon hybridization, and hydrogen content. The training dataset was Raman spectra collected from commercial samples (HOPG, DLC, GC) and samples synthesized in our laboratory (GLCH, PLCH). The Raman spectra were collected using 532 nm laser excitation. The classification model revealed that the first principal component (PC1) was the determinant source of information to separate the crystalline from the amorphous carbon samples. PC2 allowed the separation of amorphous material with different levels of hybridization (sp 2 and sp 3 ). Finally, both PC2 and PC3 contributed to separate materials with different levels of hydrogenation. The classification model was tested using a library of Raman spectra of carbon materials reported in the literature, and the results showed a high accuracy prediction (97%). The model presented here provides an avenue for automated classification of carbon materials using Raman spectroscopy and machine learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".