MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988180313 · doi:10.1021/cg800348y

Selective Synthesis and Formation Mechanism of TiS<sub>2</sub> Dendritic Crystals

2008· article· en· W1988180313 on OpenAlexaff
Jingjing Ma, Hua Jin, Xiaoyang Liu, Michael E. Fleet, Jixue Li, Xuejing Cao, Shouhua Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystal Growth & Design · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersProgram for New Century Excellent Talents in University
KeywordsReagentMoleculeChemical engineeringChemistryMorphology (biology)TemplatePhase (matter)NanotechnologySulfurMaterials scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-purity TiS 2 dendritic crystals have been selectively synthesized via an easy and simple CVT (chemical vapor transport) process using only inorganic reagents. Reaction temperature and duration are the most important factors controlling the morphologies of TiS 2 dendrites. Instead of using organic reagents as templates to induce the self-assembly of inorganic molecules, a simple CVT process was adopted to realize the hierarchical self-assembly of inorganic molecules via transport in a sulfur-rich atmosphere far from thermodynamic equilibrium conditions. The phase structures and morphologies of the TiS 2 products were characterized by XRD, polarized-light microscopy, SEM, and TEM. All microscopic observations not only indicate a dendritic morphology but also provide direct evidence for the growth process of TiS 2 dendrites. The formation mechanism for TiS 2 fractals is further investigated and discussed on the basis of the experimental results.

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)0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystal Growth & DesignSame topicChalcogenide Semiconductor Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207