MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057451599 · doi:10.1149/1.2387104

Fabrication and Characterization of Porous Anodic Alumina Films from Impure Aluminum Foils

2006· article· en· W2057451599 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAnodic Oxide Films and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsAnodizingMaterials scienceFOIL methodUltrapure waterAluminiumFabricationElectropolishingAnnealing (glass)Aluminium foilAnodeAluminum foilPorosityMetallurgyChemical engineeringNanotechnologyComposite materialElectrodeChemistryElectrolyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report here on the fabrication of porous anodic alumina (PAA) films from commercially available impure aluminum foil. While the expensive ultrapure PAA films are restricted to potential applications in nanoelectrophotonics, the impure PAA films are more suitable for large-scale applications, such as in catalysis and filtration. The anodization current behavior and chemical composition of the resulting PAA films from impure and ultrapure foils were found to be similar for the same set of anodizing conditions. However, the PAA films from impure aluminum foil contained pore arrays of much smaller size and less consistently sized pores than those of PAA from ultrapure foils. We find that these qualities are improved by either annealing or electropolishing the aluminum foil prior to anodization, although not to the degree of PAA produced from ultrapure foils. Greater improvement is found for annealed foils compared to electropolished foils.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 head0.196
Teacher spread0.192 · 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