MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002531110 · doi:10.1115/1.4025519

1-Hexanol Based Catalyst Inks for Catalyst Layer Preparation for a DMFC

2013· article· en· W2002531110 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Hürter, C. Wannek, Martin Müller, Detlef Stolten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie
KeywordsCatalysisChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)HexanolLayer (electronics)Materials scienceIsopropyl alcoholMethanolCatalyst supportChemistryOrganic chemistryNanotechnologyAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The catalyst ink preparation for a catalyst layer production by screen printing for a direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) is evaluated. Among a large variety of solvents 1-hexanol was chosen for the preparation due to its properties fitting the requirements for the ink preparation. 1-hexanol based catalyst inks lead to thicker catalyst layers compared to isopropyl-/propylalcohol based catalyst inks, currently used in-house. Despite showing different layer properties, MEAs based on 1-hexanol or isopropyl-/propylalcohol based catalyst layers show comparable electrochemical performances. When using 1-hexanol based catalyst inks the dispersion procedure shows great influence on the outcoming catalyst layer. Long dispersion periods and a medium power output of ultrasonication of the catalyst dispersion are beneficial and lead to good coating qualities of the catalyst layer and therefore to high electrochemical performances.

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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fuel Cell Science and TechnologySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207