MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behaviour of copper and generation of oxygen during anodizing of Nb-Cu alloys

2000· article· en· W1997294683 on OpenAlexaff
S. Mato, P. Skeldon, G.E. Thompson, D. Masheder, G. I. Sproule, M. J. Graham, H. Habazaki, Ken‐ichi Shimizu

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsAnodizingCopperAlloyOxygenMetallurgyMaterials scienceAnodeAnodic oxidationChemical engineeringChemistryAluminiumElectrodePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anodic oxidation behaviour of two compositions of Nb–Cu alloy is examined with particular reference to the oxidation of copper at the alloy/film interface and the generation of oxygen within the anodic film. Anodizing of an Nb–3 at.% Cu alloy results in a uniform, niobia-based anodic film, with copper species, which migrate faster than Nb5+ ions, distributed throughout the film. The oxidation of copper proceeds without significant enrichment of copper in the alloy. Further, the film is free of bubbles of oxygen, which is not generated in significant amounts during film growth to relatively high voltages. In contrast, copious amounts of oxygen are generated during anodizing of an Nb–30 at.% Cu alloy, with the consequential development of a highly flawed anodic film of non-uniform thickness. The oxygen is present mainly in numerous bubbles located within the niobia-based film material. Bursting of the bubbles, with release of trapped oxygen, leads to a highly damaged film. The continuous generation of oxygen consumes much of the current and limits the anodizing voltage to a low value. The large-scale generation of oxygen for the more concentrated alloy is suggested to be associated with the distribution of copper in the alloy, with copper having a tendency to form copper-rich clusters, which are enhanced in size by an initial brief period of uniform film growth. Oxygen is then generated, probably following oxidation of such clusters. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207