MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091543434 · doi:10.1002/ppsc.200700031

On Preparation of Non‐Disrupted Particles by Spray Pyrolysis

2008· article· en· W2091543434 on OpenAlexaff
Adriane Chau, Morteza Eslamian, Nasser Ashgriz

Bibliographic record

VenueParticle & Particle Systems Characterization · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCubic zirconiaParticle (ecology)PyrolysisPorosityZirconiumSpray pyrolysisImpurityChemical engineeringMaterials scienceSolventChemistryCeramicComposite materialNanotechnologyMetallurgyThin filmOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using spray pyrolysis, solid fully‐filled zirconia particles were synthesized at relatively high reactor temperatures (∼ 400 °C) by adding NaCl as impurities to zirconium hydroxychloride (ZHC) precursor that would have lead to the formation of hollow disrupted particles otherwise. FE‐SEM images show that at comparable concentration of NaCl and ZHC both cubic and spherical NaCl/ZrO2 particles form. The particle characteristics were varied by varying solute concentration, type, and solvent content. Addition of NaCl caused the formation of both cubic and spherical particles which were non‐disrupted at even high temperatures. According to the EDS compositional analysis, the cubic particles had more Na content while the spherical ones had higher Zr content. It is concluded that growth mechanism of NaCl particles is different from that of zirconia particles. Drying of the former even at high temperatures leads to the formation of solid, fully‐filled, porous particles, whereas hollow, disrupted particles are formed using the latter.

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 score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
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 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParticle & Particle Systems CharacterizationSame topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207