MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145666711 · doi:10.1515/pac-2014-5026

Defining the transfer coefficient in electrochemistry: An assessment (IUPAC Technical Report)

2014· article· en· W2145666711 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

VenuePure and Applied Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrochemical Analysis and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCharge transfer coefficientElectron transferElectrochemistryElectrodeChemical nomenclatureSign (mathematics)Reaction rate constantStandard electrode potentialAnodeKinetic energyTransfer (computing)ElectronAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryKineticsOrganic chemistryQuantum mechanicsCyclic voltammetryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The transfer coefficient α is a quantity that is commonly employed in the kinetic investigation of electrode processes. In the 3 rd edition of the IUPAC Green Book, the cathodic transfer coefficient α c is defined as –( RT / nF )( d ln k c /d E ), where k c is the electroreduction rate constant, E is the applied potential, and R, T , and F have their usual significance. This definition is equivalent to the other, -( RT / nF )( d ln| j c |/d E ), where j c is the cathodic current density corrected for any changes in the reactant concentration at the electrode surface with respect to its bulk value. The anodic transfer coefficient α a is defined similarly, by simply replacing j c with the anodic current density j a and the minus sign with the plus sign. It is shown that this definition applies only to an electrode reaction that consists of a single elementary step involving the simultaneous uptake of n electrons from the electrode in the case of α c , or their release to the electrode in the case of α a . However, an elementary step involving the simultaneous release or uptake of more than one electron is regarded as highly improbable in view of the absolute rate theory of electron transfer of Marcus; the hardly satisfiable requirements for the occurrence of such an event are examined. Moreover, the majority of electrode reactions do not consist of a single elementary step; rather, they are multistep, multi-electron processes. The uncritical application of the above definitions of α c and α a has led researchers to provide unwarranted mechanistic interpretations of electrode reactions. In fact, the only directly measurable experimental quantity is d ln| j |/d E , which can be made dimensionless upon multiplication by RT / F , yielding ( RT / F )( d ln| j |/d E ). One common source of misinterpretation consists in setting this experimental quantity equal to αn , according to the above definition of the transfer coefficient, and in trying to estimate n from αn , upon ascribing an arbitrary value to α , often close to 0.5. The resulting n value is then identified with the number of electrons involved in a hypothetical rate-determining step or with that involved in the overall electrode reaction. A few examples of these unwarranted mechanistic interpretations are reported. In view of the above considerations, it is proposed to define the cathodic and anodic transfer coefficients by the quantities α c = –( RT / F )( d ln| j c |/d E ) and α a = ( RT / F )( d ln j a /d E ), which are independent of any mechanistic consideration.

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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.256 · 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