MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084740090 · doi:10.1021/jp072722j

Defective Rock-Salt Structure in Anodically Electrodeposited Mn−Co−O Nanocrystals

2007· article· en· W2084740090 on OpenAlexafffund
Weifeng Wei, Weixing Chen, Douglas G. Ivey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrodeposition and Electroless Coatings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyNanocrystalline materialNanocrystalMaterials scienceManganeseTransmission electron microscopySalt (chemistry)CobaltOctahedronCrystallographyElectron diffractionDiffractionCrystal structureChemical engineeringChemistryNanotechnologyMetallurgyOpticsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mn−Co−O nanocrystals, ranging from pure cobalt oxides to pure manganese oxides, were anodically electrodeposited on stainless steel substrates. Detailed structural characterization of as-deposited Mn−Co−O nanocrystals was conducted using wavelength-dispersive spectroscopy (WDS), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). WDS and XPS results suggest that there is an inherent cation deficiency associated with the as-deposited nanocrystalline oxides. Experimental selected-area diffraction (SAD) ring patterns obtained from these oxides are consistent with simulated SAD ring patterns of a defective rock-salt-type phase, in which a significant number of cation vacancies reside on the octahedral interstices in the rock-salt-type unit cell. Additional diffracted spots were also observed between the (200) and (220) reflections, which may be attributed to ordering of Mn vacancies in the rock-salt-type unit cell. The formation of this type of defective rock-salt structure is likely a consequence of the low temperatures used to deposit the Mn−Co−O nanocrystals.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicElectrodeposition and Electroless CoatingsFrench-language works237,207