MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating focused ion beam and ultramicrotome sample preparation for analytical microscopies of the cathode layer of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell

2016· article· en· W2275754864 on OpenAlexafffund
Lis G. A. Melo, Adam P. Hitchcock, Viatcheslav Berejnov, Darija Susac, Jürgen Stumper, Gianluigi A. Botton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Power Sources · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsAutomotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (Canada)Brockhouse Institute for Materials ResearchMcMaster University
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOffice of ScienceCanada Research ChairsNational Research Council CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFocused ion beamMaterials scienceTransmission electron microscopySample preparationElectrolytePolymerCathodeMicroscopyNanotechnologyElectrodeChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryIonChromatographyComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Power SourcesSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207