MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anchoring platinum on graphene using metallic adatoms: a first principles investigation

2012· article· en· W1964053643 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatih Şen, Yue Qi, A.T. Alpas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Condensed Matter · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGraphenePlatinumMaterials scienceCovalent bondMetalIonic bondingBond strengthDensity functional theoryChemical physicsNanotechnologyChemistryIonComputational chemistryCatalysisLayer (electronics)Adhesive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First principles calculations based on spin-polarized density functional theory were used to identify metallic adatoms that would strengthen the Pt(111)/graphene interface (with a low work of separation of 0.009 J m(-2)), when the adatom was placed between the Pt(111) and the graphene. It was shown that the strength of the Pt-adatom bond, which had a metallic character, increased with the amount of charge transferred from the adatom to the Pt. The carbon-adatom bond, on the other hand, had a mixed ionic and covalent character and was weaker than the Pt-adatom bond for each of the 25 elements considered. Consequently, the total Pt(111)/graphene interface strength and, hence, the anchoring effect of the adatom were controlled by the carbon-adatom bond strength. Metals with unfilled d orbitals increased the Pt/graphene interface strength to above 0.5 J m(-2). The carbon-adatom bond strength was proportional to the ratio between the charge transferred from the adatom to the graphene (ΔZ(C)) and the charge transferred to the Pt surface (ΔZ(Pt)); i.e., the ΔZ(C)/ΔZ(Pt) ratio defined the ability of an adatom to anchor Pt to graphene. For Ir, Os, Ru, Rh and Re, ΔZ(C)/ΔZ(Pt) > 1.0, making these elements the most effective adatoms for anchoring Pt to graphene.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Condensed MatterSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207