MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Synthesis of Tin and Indium Oxide Nanoparticles in Sub‐ and Supercritical Water

2007· article· en· W2110571632 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Fang, Hassane Assaaoudi, R. I. L. Guthrie, Janusz A. Koziński, Ian S. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercritical fluidMaterials scienceNanoparticleNanocrystalline materialTetragonal crystal systemIndiumCalcinationTransmission electron microscopyIndium tin oxideTinRaman spectroscopyChemical engineeringParticle sizeTin oxideScanning electron microscopeDifferential scanning calorimetryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OxideCrystallographyNanotechnologyCrystal structureChemistryMetallurgyThin filmOrganic chemistryOpticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanocrystalline tin and indium oxides (In 2 O 3 /SnO 2 ) were synthesized in sub‐ and supercritical water at 350°/380°C and 30 MPa in <73 s in a tubular flow reactor from an aqueous solution of {SnCl 4 +InCl 3 } (0.2 M ). The conversion rate for tin was 100%. Nanoparticles were analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), emitted X‐rays, Raman, differential scanning calorimetry, and X‐ray diffraction techniques. The bulk particles were composed of In, Sn, and O atoms, and made up of cubic In 2 O 3 (10 nm) and tetragonal SnO 2 (5.5 nm) crystals. After calcination at 500°C for 2 h, little change occurred in the particle size and crystal phase. Traces of tin‐doped indium oxide particles were also formed as confirmed by the TEM electron diffraction pattern. Using this one‐step, high‐temperature hydrothermal process, oxide nanoparticles can be continuously and conveniently produced in a well‐controlled process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207