MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116685663 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v1n1p13

Preparation of LaFeO3 Porous Hollow Nanofibers by Electrospinning

2009· article· en· W2116685663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiangting Dong, Jinxian Wang, Qizheng Cui, Guixia Liu, Wensheng Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSupercapacitor Materials and Fabrication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Jilin ProvincePeople's Government of Jilin Province
KeywordsNanofiberElectrospinningCalcinationComposite numberPorosityAmorphous solidOrthorhombic crystal systemChemical engineeringChemistryComposite materialMaterials scienceNanotechnologyPolymerCrystal structureCrystallographyOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone (PVP)/[La(NO3)3+Fe(NO3)3] composite nanofibers were fabricated by electrospinning. SEMmicrographs indicated that the surface of the prepared composite fibers was smooth, and the diameters of the nanofiberswas in the range of 1-3μm. XRD analysis revealed that the composite nanofibers were amorphous in structure. LaFeO3nanofibers were fabricated by calcination of the PVP/[La(NO3)3+Fe(NO3)3] composite fibers. The diameters of LaFeO3nanofibers were smaller than those of the relevant composite fibers. The surface of the LaFeO3 nanofibers becamecoarse with the increase of calcination temperatures. LaFeO3 hollow-centered and porous nanofibers formed bynanoparticles were acquired when firing temperature was 600-800ºC. SEM images indicated that the diameters of thesynthesized LaFeO3 nanofibers ranged from 500 to 800nm, and their lengths were greater than 100????m. XRD analysisrevealed that LaFeO3 nanofibers were orthorhombic in structure with space group Pn*a. Possible formation mechanismfor LaFeO3 nanofibers was preliminarily proposed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicSupercapacitor Materials and FabricationFrench-language works237,207