Effects of calcium monohydrogenphosphate on the morphology of calcium sulfate whisker by hydrothermal synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the factors related to the morphology of calcium sulfate whisker (CSW) are discussed. Most attention was devoted to the influence of co‐crystallized phosphorus in phosphogypsum—existing in the form of CaHPO 4 · 2H 2 O—on the crystal growth, which was ignored in the preparation of CSW from phosphogypsum in previous research. Methods including X‐ray powder diffraction and scanning electron microscopy were performed to characterize the resultant crystals. The CSWs with uniform morphology were prepared by hydrothermal synthesis with commercial CaSO 4 · 2H 2 O. However, the productions from the pretreatment phosphogypsum by hydrothermal synthesis appeared as irregular crystals with a small length to width ratio, and whisk‐broom‐like crystals were common. The influence of CaHPO 4 · 2H 2 O on the growth of CSW has also been studied. The results showed that CaHPO 4 · 2H 2 O can promote the formation of needle‐like crystals and whisk‐broom‐like crystals at hydration condition. In order to improve the morphology of CSW in a CaSO 4 · 2H 2 O‐CaHPO 4 · 2H 2 O system, substantive condition experiments were carried out, and it finally revealed that Fe 3+ was useful for the well‐developed CSW.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".