MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553226723 · doi:10.1063/1.3160161

Study on the Effect of Different Amount of Titanium Dioxide Nano-Powder to the Nano-Structured Titanium Dioxide Thin Films

2009· article· en· W1553226723 on OpenAlexaff
Mohd Khairul Ahmad, M. Rusop, Tetsuo Soga

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells
Canadian institutionsSciencetech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnataseMaterials scienceTitanium dioxideDiffractometerThin filmSpin coatingNano-TransmittanceChemical engineeringTitaniumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhotocatalysisNanotechnologyScanning electron microscopeComposite materialMetallurgyOptoelectronicsChromatographyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanostructured Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) thin film with additional various amount of TiO2 nanopowder has been successfully prepared using sol‐gel spin coating method. The amounts of TiO2 nanopowders are varied at 0.02 g, 0.04 g, 0.06 g, 0.08 g, 0.10 g and 0.12 g, respectively. The effects of different amount of Titanium Dioxide nanopowder to the structural, electrical and optical properties have been studied. The effects of different amount of nano‐powder TiO2 were characterized using X‐Ray Diffractometer (XRD), 2‐point probe I‐V measurement and UV‐Vis‐NIR Spectrophotometer. For electrical properties, O.1 g of TiO2 nanopowder gives the lowest sheet resistance among other nanostructured TiO2 thin film. As for XRD data, all thin films are in crystalline anatase form which can observe at 2θ degree 25.6° for [101]. As the amount TiO2 nanopowder increased at 0.10 g and 0.12 g, new crystalline anatase phase can be observed at 2θ degree 48.6° for [200]. All TiO2 thin films also exhibited optical transmittance over 69% with wavelength range from 200 nm to 1000 nm.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar CellsFrench-language works237,207