MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011704927 · doi:10.1134/1.1325028

Pressure-induced increase in the ionic conductivity of Li, Na, and K zeolites of type A

2000· article· en· W2011704927 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard A. Secco, Michael D. Rutter, Yining Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsConductivityMaterials scienceAmorphous solidIonic conductivityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryPhysical chemistryCrystallographyOrganic chemistryElectrolyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of pressure on the ionic conductivity of hydrated A-zeolites containing Li, Na, and K cations was investigated. Room-temperature experiments at pressures to 4.8 GPa show an increase in the conductivity, which attains its maximum value in the range of 1.7–1.8 GPa for the three zeolites. Further compression leads to a drastic decrease in the conductivity at 2.5–3.5 GPa. The decrease in the conductivity is associated with the pressure-induced transition to the amorphous state, as follows from previously reported IR spectroscopy data. It is believed that the increase in the conductivity with pressure and the subsequent transition to the amorphous state follow one or several of the following mechanisms: (1) cation conductivity involving hydroxyls, (2) hydroxyl-proton conductivity, and (3) enhanced cation mobility due to pressure-induced change in the degree of hydration. With decreasing pressure, the conductivity does not follow the compression curve. For pressure-cycled samples, the low-pressure conductivity during decompression is two orders of magnitude higher than its value at the same pressure during compression. Compression provides a new way for conductivity optimization in hydrated A-zeolites.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical PhysicsSame topicZeolite Catalysis and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207