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 OpenAlexafffund
Ehsan Shahini, Narendra Chaulagain, Karthik Shankar, Tian Tang

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207