MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Textures on Hydrogen Diffusion in Nickel

2002· article· en· W2163836812 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Cao, Hua Li, Jerzy A. Szpunar, W.T. Shmayda

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrodeposition and Electroless Coatings
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNickelDiffusionHydrogenMetallurgyChemical physicsThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycrystalline Ni membranes have been prepared using electrodeposition. Plating current density has a strong influence on texture development of nickel deposits. The texture of deposits can be easily manipulated by controlling plating conditions. At low current density, the left angle 100 right angle fiber texture is the main component. At high current density; the left angle 110 right angle fiber texture dominates. After annealing at 800 C for 1 h deposits with left angle 100 right angle the (111) texture has been observed. For (001), (011) and (111), the three basic planes in FCC nickel, absorption energies decrease as one moves from (001) to (011) and then (111). Hydrogen diffusion in single crystal metals is anisotropic. When polycrystalline metals have texture, the preferential orientation of metals will affect hydrogen absorption and diffusion. Hydrogen permeation results show that there are significant differences among (001), (011) and (111) textured nickel membranes. Diffusion coefficients are in increasing order for (001), (011) and (111) texture samples. The diffusion coefficient of sample without a dominant texture is smaller than those values obtained for (001), (100) and (111) textured samples. The diffusion coefficients of (001) and (011) texture membranes are higher than (001) and (011) single crystal membranes, but have the same trends. Texture in nickel samples plays an important role in hydrogen permeation. (orig.)

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicElectrodeposition and Electroless CoatingsFrench-language works237,207