MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307926456 · doi:10.2138/am-2003-0103

Dissolution of gibbsite: Direct observations using fluid cell atomic force microscopy

2003· article· en· W2307926456 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

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBauxite Residue and Utilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissolutionGibbsiteCleavage (geology)Atomic force microscopyChemistryCrystallographyMineralogyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceKaoliniteNanotechnologyPhysical chemistryComposite materialChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to follow the far-from-equilibrium dissolution of the {001} cleavage surface of natural gibbsite in nitric acid. The main dissolution mechanism was the retreat of straight monolayer steps, the edges of which are parallel to the <110>, <010>, and <100> directions. The stability of these steps can be expressed as <110> > <010> > <100>. The results are explained in terms of the positions of the terminal O atoms and their associated Al atoms at the steps. New steps were formed at etch pits that opened where screw dislocations emerged on the surface. The dissolution rates were calculated from the change in size of pits and islands. The values obtained were 9.5 × 10-9 - 2.3 × 10-8 mol/m2·s, normalized to the total surface area, and 1.8 - 3.6 × 10-7 mol/m2·s, normalized to the surface area of the step fronts. The rates of dissolution calculated using only the surface area of the step fronts are similar to literature values obtained by other methods.

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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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