MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084856257 · doi:10.1021/la703098g

Synthesis of F-Doped Flower-like TiO<sub>2</sub> Nanostructures with High Photoelectrochemical Activity

2008· article· en· W2084856257 on OpenAlexaff
Guosheng Wu, Jingpeng Wang, Dan F. Thomas, Aicheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanostructureDopingPhotoelectrochemistryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringNanotechnologyChemistryElectrochemistryOptoelectronicsPhysical chemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a novel and facile approach for the direct growth of F-doped flower-like TiO(2) nanostructures on the surface of Ti in HF solutions under low-temperature hydrothermal conditions. The influence of the experimental parameters such as temperature, reaction duration, and the HF concentration on the morphology and photoelectrocatalytic activity of the formed F-doped flower-like TiO(2) nanostructures was systematically studied. The presence of HF and the reaction time play an important role in the formation of the F-doped flower-like TiO(2) nanostructures. The synthesized novel F-doped TiO(2) flower-like nanomaterials possess good crystallinity and exhibit high photoelectrochemical activity for water-splitting and photodegradation of organic pollutants compared with P-25, which is currently considered to be one of the best commercial TiO(2) photocatalysts. The approach described in this study provides a simple and novel method to synthesize F-doped TiO(2) nanostructured materials that are ready for practical applications such as the photodegradation of wastewater.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations286
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar CellsFrench-language works237,207