MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023564575 · doi:10.1080/00958972.2014.892590

Flower-like boehmite nanostructure formation in two-steps

2014· article· en· W2023564575 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Zanganeh, Saeid Zanganeh, Armin Rajabi, Masoud Allahkarami, Reza Rahbari Ghahnavyeh, Arshak Moghaddas, Morteza Aieneravaie, Navid Asadizanjani, S.K. Sadrnezhaad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coordination Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMesoporous Materials and Catalysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoehmiteTriethanolamineNanostructureNucleationChemistryNanocrystalSelected area diffractionTransmission electron microscopyChemical engineeringCrystallographyHydrothermal circulationNanotechnologyMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Organic chemistryAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaction between AlCl3 and TEA (triethanolamine) gave Al(OH)3 colloidal nanocrystals that were precursors to nucleation and growth of boehmite under hydrothermal conditions. Transition electron microscopic (TEM) observations revealed that flower-like nanostructures were produced through a binary self-assembly system. In the first stage, nanostrips organize themselves to form a bundle, because of NH4+ and TEA. In the second stage, the bundles form flower-like nanostructures due to the interaction of nitrate with TEA. The size of the nanopetals (length 100–200 nm; width 100–150 nm; and thickness 20–70 nm) was measured through TEM. X-ray diffraction and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET-N2) results demonstrate that the obtained nanostructures were composed of a pure AlOOH phase with a surface area of 160 m2 g−1. The effect of Cl ˉ on the growth of boehmite 3-D nanoarchitectures in the presence of NO3ˉ was also investigated.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coordination ChemistrySame topicMesoporous Materials and CatalysisFrench-language works237,207