A review on selected heterogeneous photocatalysts for hydrogen production
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, visible light-driven heterogeneous photocatalysts for hydrogen production are comparatively assessed based on technical, environmental, and cost criteria. The photocatalysis systems are compared with respect to their (i) rate of hydrogen generation per gram; (ii) rate of hydrogen generation per m2 of the specific surface area; and (iii) the band gap energy. The photocatalysis systems are also compared and discussed in terms of flammability, reactivity, and their impact on living systems' health. Furthermore, the costs of the required components of the photocatalysis systems are ranked. In addition to individual photocatalyst comparison, seven photocatalyst groups are ranked and compared. The results show that TiO2-C-362 and Ag0.03Mn0.40Cd0.60S show the highest in terms of µmol/h-gcat and µmol/h-m2cat, respectively, and TiO2-C-362 has the highest overall rankings. The Zn/In/S-based photocatalyst groups show the highest hydrogen production rate in terms of µmol/h-gcat and µmol/h-m2cat. Overall, Cd/S/Zn has the highest rankings when cost and health and environmental impact criteria are taken into account. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it