MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Study on Measuring Particle Size Distribution of a Nanodiamond Powder

2013· article· en· W1983181536 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Long Wei, Yu Tang Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
FundersCAEP Foundation
KeywordsNanodiamondMaterials scienceSodium hexametaphosphateDynamic light scatteringParticle-size distributionDiamondParticle sizeSuspension (topology)DispersantLight scatteringParticle (ecology)ViscosityComposite materialChemical engineeringNanotechnologyScatteringOpticsNanoparticleDispersion (optics)SodiumMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle size distribution (PSD) of a nanodiamond powder in a high concentration suspension was measured by a new dynamic light scattering (DLS) technique based on the Doppler frequency shifting effect. Influence of dispersing pre-treatment, distribution bases and materials’ properties on DLS results was analyzed, and PSD results were validated by TEM analysis. It was found that the optimized ultrasonic dispersing time of the diamond powder in a sodium hexametaphosphate (SHP) solution was about 5 minutes. And median sizes of the nanodiamond powder were 115.6 nm, 53.0 nm and 32.6 nm, based on light intensity, volume and number respectively. PSD results of the nanodiamond based on number accorded well with results from TEM analysis. And PSD results were affected hardly by refractive indices of the diamond and the dispersing medium, while they were affected markedly by viscosity of the medium. It is concluded that this new DLS technique could measure PSD of the nanodiamond powder in high concentration suspensions which has been dispersed properly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207