Electrical transport properties of aliovalent cation‐doped CeO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the comparative electrical properties of monovalent (Na+), divalent (Ca2+, Sr2+), trivalent (In3+, La3+) and coupled substitution of divalent and trivalent (Ca2+ + Sm3+) cation‐doped CeO2. The investigated samples were prepared by solid‐state reaction (ceramic) using the corresponding metal oxides and salts in the temperature range 1000–1600 °C in air. Powder X‐ray diffraction (PXRD), laser particle size analysis (LPSA), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and ac impedance spectroscopy measurements were employed for structural, morphology, and electrical characterization. PXRD studies reveal the formation of single‐phase cubic fluorite‐type structures for all investigated samples except those doped with In3+. The variation of lattice parameters is consistent with ionic radii (IR) of the dopant metal ions, with the exception of Na+‐doped CeO2. Our attempt to substitute In3+ for Ce4+ in CeO2 using both ceramic and wet chemical methods was unsuccessful. Furthermore, diffraction peaks attributed to CeO2 and In2O3 were observed up to sintering conditions of 1600 °C. Among the single‐phase compounds investigated, Ce0.85Ca0.05Sm0.1O1.9 exhibits the highest bulk conductivity of 1.3 × 10−3 S/cm at 500 °C with activation energy of 0.64 eV in air. The electrical conductivity data obtained for Ce0.85Ca0.05Sm0.1O1.9 in air and Ar were found to be very similar over the investigated temperature range, indicating the absence of p‐electronic conduction in the high oxygen partial pressure (pO2) range which is consistent with literature reported on Sm‐doped CeO2. Copyright © 2008 Curtin University of Technology and 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".