MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079933647 · doi:10.1149/1.1789394

Comparison of Methanol Crossover among Four Types of Nafion Membranes

2004· article· en· W2079933647 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Ling, O. Savadogo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethanolNafionMembraneElectrochemistryChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Cyclic voltammetryMethanol fuelAnodeMaterials scienceChromatographyElectrodeOrganic chemistryBiochemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crossover behavior of methanol through Nafion 112, 117, 1035, and 1135 membranes using cyclic voltammetry (CV) was studied at 25°C and the results compared. The multiple CV technique was used to study the electrochemical characteristics of the crossed methanol during this crossover. Meanwhile, a method established in our laboratory was introduced to determine the concentrations of methanol crossover. The use of various types of Nafion membranes resulted in significant differences in the anodic current responses of the CV curves under similar experimental conditions. The concentration of crossed methanol decreases with time for all four types of Nafion membrane. The mathematical expression of the variation of the methanol crossover changes with the initial methanol concentrationt and the thickness of the membrane. The type of the expression depends on the membrane thickness and the initial methanol concentration. By contrast, the concentration of crossed methanol decreases with an increase in the thickness of the Nafion membrane. It was observed that, for membranes of the same thickness, the crossed methanol increases with a decrease in the equivalent weight of the membrane. © 2004 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207