MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989126300 · doi:10.5539/apr.v1n1p8

Electrospinning Fabrication of Polycrystalline LaCrO3 Porous Hollow Nanofibers

2009· article· en· W1989126300 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jinxian Wang, Xiangting Dong, Qizheng Cui, Guixia Liu, Wensheng Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Jilin ProvincePeople's Government of Jilin Province
KeywordsElectrospinningNanofiberMaterials scienceCalcinationComposite numberAmorphous solidChemical engineeringCrystallitePorosityOrthorhombic crystal systemFabricationNanoparticleComposite materialNanotechnologyPolymerCrystal structureChemistryCrystallographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone(PVP)/[La(NO3)3+Cr(NO3)3] composite nanofibers were fabricated by electrospinning. SEMmicrographs indicated that the surface of the prepared composite fibers was smooth, and the diameter of thenanofibers was in the range of 1-3?m. XRD analysis revealed that the composite nanofibers were amorphous instructure. LaCrO3 nanofibers were fabricated by calcination of the PVP/[La(NO3)3+Cr(NO3)3] composite fibers. Thediameters of LaCrO3 nanofibers were smaller than those of the relevant composite fibers. The surface of the LaCrO3nanofibers became coarse with the increase of calcination temperatures. LaCrO3 hollow-centered and porousnanofibers formed by nanoparticles were acquired when firing temperature was 600-900ºC. SEM images indicatedthat the diameters of the synthesized LaCrO3 nanofibers ranged from 500 to 800nm, and their lengths were greaterthan 100?m. XRD analysis revealed that LaCrO3 nanofibers were orthorhombic in structure with space group Pbnm.Possible formation mechanism for LaCrO3 nanofibers was preliminarily proposed.

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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207