MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388501550 · doi:10.1021/acsami.3c09347

Predicting Free Energies of Exfoliation and Solvation for Graphitic Carbon Nitrides Using Machine Learning

2023· article· en· W4388501550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMaterials scienceGraphitic carbon nitrideSolvationDielectricExfoliation jointNanosheetSolventNanotechnologyGrapheneOptoelectronicsOrganic chemistryPhotocatalysisCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a metal-free and visible-light-responsive photocatalyst, graphitic carbon nitride (g-C 3 N 4 ) has emerged as a new research hotspot and has attracted broad attention in the field of solar energy conversion and thin-film transistors. Liquid-phase exfoliation (LPE) is the best-known method for the synthesis of 2D g-C 3 N 4 nanosheets. In LPE, bulk g-C 3 N 4 is exfoliated in a solvent via high-shear mixing or sonication in order to produce a stable suspension of individual nanosheets. Two parameters of importance in gauging the performance of a solvent in LPE are the free energy required to exfoliate a unit area of layered materials into individual sheets in the solvent (Δ G exf ) and the solvation free energy per unit area of a nanosheet (Δ G sol ). While approximations for the free energies exist, they are shown in our previous work to be inaccurate and incapable of capturing the experimentally observed efficacy of LPE. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can provide accurate free-energy calculations, but doing so for every single solvent is time- and resource-consuming. Herein, machine learning (ML) algorithms are used to predict Δ G exf and Δ G sol for g-C 3 N 4 . First, a database for Δ G exf and Δ G sol is created based on a series of MD simulations involving 49 different solvents with distinct chemical structures and properties. The data set also includes values of critical descriptors for the solvents, including density, surface tension, dielectric constant, etc. Different ML methods are compared, accompanied by descriptor selection, to develop the most accurate model for predicting Δ G exf and Δ G sol . The extra tree regressor is shown to be the best performer among the six ML methods studied. Experimental validation of the model is conducted by performing dispersibility tests in several solvents for which the free energies are predicted. Finally, the influence of the selected descriptors on the free energies is analyzed, and strategies for solvent selection in LPE are proposed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · 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