MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593495052 · doi:10.3390/ma8063479

Mechanical and Thermal Dehydrogenation of the Mechano-Chemically Synthesized Calcium Alanate (Ca(AlH4)2) and Lithium Chloride (LiCl) Composite

2015· article· en· W1593495052 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Varin, Ewelina Kościuczyk, Tomasz Czujko

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermogravimetric analysisDehydrogenationDifferential scanning calorimetryBall millThermal decompositionMaterials scienceActivation energyComposite numberChemical engineeringChemistryPhysical chemistryMetallurgyComposite materialCatalysisOrganic chemistryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LiAlH4 and CaCl2 were employed for mechano-chemical activation synthesis (MCAS) of Ca(AlH4)2 and LiCl hydride composite. After short ball milling time, their X-ray diffraction (XRD) peaks are clearly observed. After ball milling for a longer duration than 0.5 h, the CaAlH5 diffraction peaks are observed which indicates that Ca(AlH4)2 starts decomposing during ball milling into CaAlH5+Al+1.5H2. It is estimated that less than 1 wt % H2 was mechanically dehydrogenated in association with decomposition reaction. After 2.5 h of ball milling, no Ca(AlH4)2 diffraction peaks were observed on XRD patterns which suggests that Ca(AlH4)2 was decomposed. Thermal behavior of ball milled powders, which was investigated by thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), indicates that a certain fraction of Ca(AlH4)2 could have been disordered/amorphized during ball milling being undetectable by XRD. The apparent activation energy for the decomposition of Ca(AlH4)2 and CaAlH5 equals 135 kJ/mol and 183 kJ/mol, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicHydrogen Storage and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207