MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067383332 · doi:10.1021/jp8038219

Chemisorption and Reactivity of CH<sub><i>x</i></sub> (<i>x</i> = 0−4) on Fe−Co Alloy Surfaces

2008· article· en· W2067383332 on OpenAlexaff
John M. H. Lo, Tom Ziegler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethanationChemisorptionCatalysisAdsorptionExothermic reactionChemistryDensity functional theoryAlloyReactivity (psychology)Physical chemistryMaterials scienceComputational chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work reports results from density functional theory studies of the methanation on the FeCo(110) surface for the surface coverage below 0.25 ML. Except for CH 3 which favors the adsorption at the long-bridge Fe sites, all CH x ( x = 0−2) species are chemisorbed preferentially at the long-bridge Co and 3-fold Fe sites. On the other hand, CH 4 is only physisorbed on FeCo(110) with the tripod configuration and does not exhibit an apparent site preference. The effects of surface coverage on the adsorption energies are not significant when the surface concentration of CH x increases from 0.125 to 0.250 ML; but geometrically, the less compact p(√2 × √2)R45 is more favorable than the p(1 × 2) configuration. Among all possible C 1 species, CH is identified to be the most dominant on the surface, and the resulting kinetic potential energy surface, which includes the lateral interactions between coadsorbed species, shows that the formation of CH 4 is exothermic. These observations are in good agreement with the experimental observations that FeCo catalysts, which are immune to carbon deposition in the Fischer−Tropsch (FT) synthesis, possess similar FT catalytic properties to the conventional Co catalysts.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207