MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100969127 · doi:10.1002/ceat.200900367

Optimization of Parameters for Synthesis of MFI Nanoparticles by Taguchi Robust Design

2010· article· en· W2100969127 on OpenAlexaff
Rezvan Torkaman, Mohammad Soltanieh, Hossein Kazemian

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSharif University of Technology
KeywordsTaguchi methodsCrystallizationParticle sizeMaterials scienceOrthogonal arrayParticle-size distributionChemical engineeringDesign of experimentsNanocrystalNanoparticleZeoliteParticle (ecology)AluminiumNanotechnologyComposite materialMathematicsChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract MFI‐type zeolite was successfully synthesized by hydrothermal crystallization of clear synthesis mixtures. A statistical experimental design method (the Taguchi method with an L8 orthogonal array) was implemented to optimize the experimental conditions for the preparation of MFI nanocrystals with respect to particle size and distribution as the desirable properties. In the Taguchi experimental design, crystallization temperature, water content, template/silica molar ratio, aluminum content, as well as the presence of alkaline cations were chosen as significant parameters affecting the properties. It was shown that water and aluminum content of the synthesis solution were the most important parameters affecting particle size and distribution. The MFI nanocrystals with an average particle size of 95 nm and the narrow particle size distribution of ± 8.5 nm were synthesized under optimum conditions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.185
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
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering & TechnologySame topicZeolite Catalysis and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207