MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112089033 · doi:10.1155/s1110662x02000168

Comparison of the photoactivities of two commercial titanium dioxide powders in the degradation of 1,4‐dioxane

2002· article· en· W2112089033 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Photoenergy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicTiO2 Photocatalysis and Solar Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)Titanium dioxideChemical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMetallurgyTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two different commercial photocatalysts, Degussa P25 and Hombikat UV 100, were used to degrade 1,4‐dioxane photocatalytically in an annular slurry photoreactor. The optimum photocatalyst loading for Degussa P25 was found to be 1.5 g L -1 while for Hombikat UV 100 was between 3.0 − 4.0 g L -1 . The photoactivity of Degussa P25 is higher than that of Hombikat at lower photocatalyst loadings whereas it is lower at higher photocatalyst loadings. This was found both experimentally and also by mathematical modeling of the radiation within the photoreactor zone. The photoactivity of UV 100 titanium dioxide was found to be twice that of Degussa P25 at optimum loadings.

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.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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