MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capacitive Deionization for Selective Extraction of Lithium from Aqueous Solutions

2015· article· en· W1808664890 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marek Bryjak, Anna Siekierka, Jan Kujawski, Katarzyna Smolińska-Kempisty, Wojciech Kujawski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Membrane and Separation Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development Fund
KeywordsCapacitive deionizationExtraction (chemistry)Aqueous solutionLithium (medication)ChemistryChromatographyDesalinationMembraneMedicineOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper deals with extraction of lithium by means of two capacitive deionization systems: one composed of lithium selective electrode and second with electrode wrapped with Li-selective membrane. In the case of the first system, hybrid electrodes where obtained by mixing λ-MnO2sorbent with activated carbon .The best Li-capacity was determined for electrode with 20 wt.-% of manganese oxide. For larger amounts of λ-MnO2 the electrode capacity decreased significantly. The second system was composed of carbon electrodes wrapped with ion-exchange membranes. The lithium selective membranes were synthesized by plasma induced interpolymerization of (meth)acrylic monomersinpores of Celgard 2400 support. Two functional monomers, poly(di(ethylene glycol)methyl ether methacrylate) and poly(glycidylmethacylate modified with hydroxymethyl-12-crown-4) were copolymerized with acrylic acid. It was found that the extraction of lithium chloride was the best for membrane caring copolymers of acrylic acid and glycidyl methacrylate modified with crown ether, andit was better than for membranes with sole poly(acrylic acid).

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Membrane and Separation TechnologySame topicMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207