MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235561483 · doi:10.1021/acsami.5b06056

Atomic Layer Deposition of Pd Nanoparticles on TiO<sub>2</sub> Nanotubes for Ethanol Electrooxidation: Synthesis and Electrochemical Properties

2015· article· en· W2235561483 on OpenAlexaff
Loïc Assaud, Nicolas Brazeau, Maïssa K. S. Barr, Margrit Hanbücken, Spyridon Ntais, Elena A. Baranova, Lionel Santinacci

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsMaterials scienceX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyChemical engineeringNanoparticleAtomic layer depositionPalladiumCatalysisTransmission electron microscopyNanotechnologyAnnealing (glass)Layer (electronics)Inorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palladium nanoparticles are grown on TiO2 nanotubes by atomic layer deposition (ALD), and the resulting three-dimensional nanostructured catalysts are studied for ethanol electrooxidation in alkaline media. The morphology, the crystal structure, and the chemical composition of the Pd particles are fully characterized using scanning and transmission electron microscopies, X-ray diffraction, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The characterization revealed that the deposition proceeds onto the entire surface of the TiO2 nanotubes leading to the formation of well-defined and highly dispersed Pd nanoparticles. The electrooxidation of ethanol on Pd clusters deposited on TiO2 nanotubes shows not only a direct correlation between the catalytic activity and the particle size but also a steep increase of the response due to the enhancement of the metal-support interaction when the crystal structure of the TiO2 nanotubes is modified by annealing at 450 °C in air.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations64
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207