MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036892023 · doi:10.1115/1.3176401

Thin Film Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Deposited by Spray Pyrolysis

2010· article· en· W2036892023 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 Fuel Cell Science and Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsBC Innovation CouncilNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceElectrolyteCermetCathodeOxideChemical engineeringThermal sprayingAnodeSolid oxide fuel cellElectrochemistryThin filmPyrolysisElectrodeComposite materialMetallurgyCeramicNanotechnologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two techniques of spray pyrolysis, namely, electrostatic and pneumatic spray deposition, were used to deposit samaria-doped ceria (SDC) electrolyte and lanthanum strontium cobalt ferrite (LSCF) cathode on cermet or metal supported anodes for solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) operated at reduced temperature. The deposition processes, the properties of the deposited films, and the electrochemical performances of the fabricated cells are reported in this paper. The deposited SDC electrolytes were dense and gas-tight, and had good adhesion to the underlying anodes. The deposited LSCF cathode had a preferred morphology to facilitate the transport of oxygen gas and effective contact with the electrolyte. Button cell testing indicated that the SOFCs with electrolyte or cathode deposited by spray pyrolysis had good electrochemical performance. This study demonstrated that spray pyrolysis is a cost-effective process for fabricating thin film SOFCs, especially metal supported SOFCs.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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