MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synthesis and Characterization of NiO–YSZ Anode Materials: Precipitation, Calcination, and the Effects on Sintering

2005· article· en· W2128107463 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine M. Grgicak, Richard G. Green, Wei‐Fang Du, Javier B. Giorgi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsNon-blocking I/OCalcinationMaterials scienceYttria-stabilized zirconiaCrystalliteSinteringPrecipitationChemical engineeringNickel oxideCubic zirconiaInorganic chemistryOxideMetallurgyCeramicCatalysisChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nickel oxide yttria‐stabilized zirconia (NiO–YSZ) anode materials were synthesized via hydrolysis of the corresponding chloride solutions with NH 3 , NH 3 +NaOH, and NaOH as precipitation agents. Powder properties such as crystallite size, morphology, and sintering behavior of the final NiO–YSZ materials were also studied. The mechanism of the formation of NiO–YSZ was established for the different co‐precipitation techniques by the direct observation of Ni(NH 3 ) n +2 complexes, Ni(OH) 2 and NiO at different stages of the synthesis process. A direct relationship between the precipitation agent, the order of calcination from dry sample to final product, the final composition, the crystallite sizes and particle sizes of NiO, and the sinterability of the final products was established. A comparison of the powder and individual component properties indicate that the choice of precipitation agent greatly influences the final characteristics. Ni/YSZ materials prepared by NH 3 +NaOH precipitation offer higher Ni dispersion and nanocrystallinity of both the Ni and YSZ phases. The conductivity of both prepared materials compares well with mixed‐oxide materials of higher Ni content.

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)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations48
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel CellsFrench-language works237,207