MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015590681 · doi:10.4236/gsc.2014.41008

A Review of Ionic Liquids, Their Limits and Applications

2014· review· en· W2015590681 on OpenAlexaff
Khashayar Ghandi

Bibliographic record

VenueGreen and Sustainable Chemistry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicIonic liquids properties and applications
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonic liquidHazardous wasteEnvironmentally friendlyBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental pollutionReactivity (psychology)Environmental scienceNanotechnologyProcess engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceWaste managementOrganic chemistryEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since environmental pollution caused by chemical and energy industries has increased for several decades, there is a social expectation that scientists and engineers try to design sustainable chemical processes, to generate less hazardous materials and more environmentally friendly sources of energy production. In this review the roles of Ionic Liquids (ILs) and IL based solvent systems as proposed alternative for conventional organic solvents are described. Since there are already many reviews on benefits of ILs, after a very brief review of ILs we focus mostly on aspects that are not covered in other reviews, in particular the known limits of these solvents. In addition, different methods to measure the physicochemical properties relevant to their use in energy storage applications such as fuel cells and batteries are introduced. The physicochemical properties that are reviewed are thermal properties, conductivity and chemical reactivity. The focus of the review is on the literature after 2008, with the exception of some important historic articles on ILs.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations708
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreen and Sustainable ChemistrySame topicIonic liquids properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207