MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086360919 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20549

Study on the preparation of activated carbon for direct carbon fuel cell with oak sawdust

2011· article· en· W2086360919 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jubing Zhang, Zhaoping Zhong, Jinxiao Zhao, Min Yang, Weiling Li, Huiyan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivated carbonAnodeMaterials scienceCarbon fibersChemical engineeringSawdustCatalysisGraphiteElectrochemistryBET theoryChemistryAdsorptionComposite materialElectrodeOrganic chemistryComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Direct carbon fuel cell (DCFC) is a device, which converts chemical energy of carbon into electrical energy through electrochemical oxidisation directly and its performance enormously depends on the characteristics of the fuel used. In this study, oak sawdust is used to prepare the activated carbon for the DCFC, with K 2 CO 3 as the activating agent. Nickel catalyst is applied to improve the electrical conductivity, while HNO 3 treatment is used for the purpose of surface modification and ash removal. The performance of the prepared activated carbon in DCFC is evaluated in a self‐built DCFC anode apparatus. The results show that the BET surface area of activated carbon reaches 1240 m 2 /g under the following conditions: activation temperature, 1173 K; activation time, 2 h; and impregnation ratio, 1. Electrical conductivity is well improved through the nickel catalyst while the amount of surface oxygen functional groups is increased and ash content is decreased through the HNO 3 treatment. When used as the fuel in the DCFC anode, the self‐made activated carbon exhibits predominant performance among all tested carbon fuels, including graphite, activated carbon fibre, etc. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207