MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1964677645 · doi:10.1139/v10-020

On the efficiency of phenol and cyclohexanone electrocatalytic hydrogenation — Effect of conditioning and working pH in acetic acid solution on palladium/fluorine-doped tin dioxide supported catalyst

2010· article· en· W1964677645 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dihourahouni Tountian, Anne Brisach-Wittmeyer, Paul Nkeng, G. Poillerat, Hugues Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCyclohexanoneCatalysisPhenolInorganic chemistryAcetic acidElectrolyteSurface modificationTin dioxideElectrodeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrocatalytic hydrogenation (ECH) of phenol and cyclohexanone was performed on a conductive Pd/SnO 2 :F catalyst. The catalyst was obtained by the impregnation method. We studied the influence of the pH of the supporting electrolyte, the conditioning pH, and the quantity of the conditioning charge passed before hydrogenation. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis showed that the functionalization of the catalyst surface by the acetic acid electrolyte depends on the pH. A direct correlation was observed between the efficiency of the hydrogenation, the pH of the electrolyte, and the electrode conditioning charge. Phenol hydrogenation was favored in acidic media, whereas cyclohexanone hydrogenation needed an acidic medium for conditioning and a basic medium for hydrogenation. The ECH rate appeared to depend on the functionalization of the catalyst surface, the adsorption of the target organic molecule on the catalyst, and its structural modification with the pH.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Chemistry→Same topicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion→French-language works237,207→