MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979430667 · doi:10.1179/026708408x343573

Electrodeposition of hyaluronic acid and composite films

2008· article· en· W1979430667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrophoretic Deposition in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHyaluronic acidThermogravimetric analysisComposite numberScanning electron microscopeNanocompositeFourier transform infrared spectroscopyDeposition (geology)FabricationChemical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrodeposition method has been developed for the fabrication of hyaluronic acid films from sodium hyaluronate solutions. The amount of the deposited material increased with increasing deposition time, resulting in the formation of 0·1–3 μm thick films. The co-deposition of hyaluronic acid and hydroxyapatite (HA) resulted in the fabrication of novel nanocomposite films by electrodeposition. In the proposed method, hyaluronate provided electrosteric stabilisation and charging of HA particles. Deposit composition can be varied by the variation of HA concentration in the sodium hyaluronate solutions. The method enabled the formation of composite films of different thicknesses in the range of 0·1–100 μm. Obtained films were studied by X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetric and differential thermal analysis, scanning electron microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Composite films showed corrosion protection of stainless steel substrates in Ringer's physiological solutions. The mechanism of deposition is discussed.

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 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.159 · 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