MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022803850 · doi:10.1149/1.2208737

Impedance Characterization of Anodic Barrier Al Oxide Film Beneath Porous Oxide Layer

2006· article· en· W2022803850 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAnodic Oxide Films and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxideMaterials scienceDielectric spectroscopyBarrier layerCapacitancePorosityEquivalent oxide thicknessLayer (electronics)AnodeElectrical impedanceComposite materialElectrochemistryChemistryElectrodeMetallurgyGate oxideElectrical engineeringPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a common technique used in the assessment of the thickness of anodic oxide films formed on Al and its alloys. However, it is shown here that the resistance values obtained from EIS data are highly dependent on the solution in which the measurements are made, while the capacitance values are independent of the solution conditions and are therefore a much more reliable means of determining oxide film thickness and other properties. We also show that the experimental EIS data for unsealed porous anodic oxides formed on top of a barrier Al oxide film in acidic solutions exhibit only a single time constant, with very little influence seen from the overlying porous oxide layer on the apparent and values. The reason for this is demonstrated by utilizing the Laplace equation to calculate the electric field induced in the oxide, which confirms that the EIS response of these films can generally be assumed to reflect the properties and coverage of the underlying barrier oxide film.

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.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.204 · 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