MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012749687 · doi:10.11113/jt.v70.3444

Preparation of High Performance SPEEK/Cloisite 15A Nanocomposite Membrane via Advanced Membrane Formulation Method

2014· article· en· W2012749687 on OpenAlexaff
Juhana Jaafar, Ahmad Fauzi Ismail, T. Matsuura, Mohd Hafiz Dzarfan Othman, Mukhlis A. Rahman, Norhaniza Yusof, W.J. Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknologi · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercalation (chemistry)NanocompositeMembraneMaterials scienceChemical engineeringPolymerEtherMethanolDispersion (optics)Polymer chemistryConductivityComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sulfonated poly (ether ether ketone) (SPEEK)/Cloisite 15A® nanocomposite membranes were prepared via solution intercalation method. For better dispersion of nanoclay in the polymer matrix, the solution intercalation method was modified and a compatibilizer was introduced. The state of nanoclay dispersion was determined by FESEM. The effect of the solution formulation preparation method and compatibilizer on the performance properties such as proton conductivity and methanol permeability of all membranes was studied. FESEM analysis confirmed that SPEEK/Cloisite 15A® nanocomposite membrane prepared via modified solution intercalation method and in the presence of compatibilizer was the best membrane in terms of its morphological structure. Due to its well nanoclay distribution in polymer matrix, this kind of membrane exhibited the highest selectivity owing to its high proton conductivity and low methanol permeability. SPEEK/Cloisite 15A® with compatibilizer prepared via modified solution intercalation method was found to be the best membrane.

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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal TeknologiSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207