Electrodeposition and Electroless Deposition of Metallic Powders: A Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrodeposition and electroless deposition of metallic powders were comparatively investigated. Electrodeposition of copper is accompanied with the simultaneous hydrogen evolution, which significantly influences the morphology of Cu powder. At lower overpotentials, branched dendrites were produced. At higher overpotentials honeycomb-like deposits of copper were obtained. Formation of silver powders was characterized by the comparison of the exchange and limiting current densities. Instantaneous growth of dendrites starts at low overpotential due to large exchange current density in silver nitrate solution. Formation of powders such as Ni, Co, Ag, Pd and Au from homogenous solutions using an appropriate reducing agent or via galvanic displacement reaction was demonstrated. The hydrolysis of metallic ions is crucial in the deposition metallic powders via electroless deposition from homogenous solutions. Oxides, such as Ag2O, Cu2O and CuO, suspended in water can successfully be reduced with an appropriate reducing agent, leading to the precipitation of metallic powders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".