Preparation of Pt–Ru Alloyed Thin Films Using a Single‐Source CVD Precursor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Treatment of (dimethylaminomethyl)ruthenocene with cis ‐Pt(DMSO) 2 Cl 2 led to the formation of a ruthenocenyl platinum complex [CpRu(η 5 ‐C 5 H 3 CH 2 NMe 2 )Pt(DMSO)Cl] ( 1 ); subsequent treatment of 1 with [Na(hfac)] afforded an air‐stable Pt–Ru complex [CpRu(η 5 ‐C 5 H 3 CH 2 NMe 2 )Pt(hfac)] ( 2 ). Its volatility and other physical data relevant to CVD experiments were assessed by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The Pt–Ru thin films were then deposited at two deposition temperatures, 300 °C and 400 °C, using O 2 as the reactive carrier gas. The as‐deposited thin films were characterized using energy dispersive X‐ray (EDX), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and X‐ray diffraction (XRD). Results indicated the formation of a homogeneous Pt–Ru solid solution at the lower deposition temperature. However, upon raising the temperature to 400 °C, phase separation between Pt and Ru occurred, which then induced the growth of RuO 2 grains at the substrate surface and caused depletion of the alloy in ruthenium. The electrocatalytic activities of the films, in respect of methanol oxidation, were investigated, in half‐cell experiments, by cyclic voltammetry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".