MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126508759 · doi:10.1155/2015/914845

Review of Solid State Hydrogen Storage Methods Adopting Different Kinds of Novel Materials

2015· article· en· W2126508759 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanomaterials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHydrogen storageSolid-stateState (computer science)HydrogenChemical engineeringNanotechnologyEngineering physicsComposite materialOrganic chemistryComputer scienceAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overview of advances in the technology of solid state hydrogen storage methods applying different kinds of novel materials is provided. Metallic and intermetallic hydrides, complex chemical hydride, nanostructured carbon materials, metal‐doped carbon nanotubes, metal‐organic frameworks (MOFs), metal‐doped metal organic frameworks, covalent organic frameworks (COFs), and clathrates solid state hydrogen storage techniques are discussed. The studies on their hydrogen storage properties are in progress towards positive direction. Nevertheless, it is believed that these novel materials will offer far‐reaching solutions to the onboard hydrogen storage problems in near future. The review begins with the deficiencies of current energy economy and discusses the various aspects of implementation of hydrogen energy based economy.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.300 · 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