Dissolution of gibbsite: Direct observations using fluid cell atomic force microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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/m 2 ·s, normalized to the total surface area, and 1.8 - 3.6 × 10 -7 mol/m 2 ·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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".