MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315095764 · doi:10.1149/1.3635596

STXM Study of the Ionomer Distribution in the PEM Fuel Cell Catalyst Layers

2011· article· en· W2315095764 on OpenAlexaff
Darija Susac, Viatcheslav Berejnov, Adam P. Hitchcock, Jürgen Stumper

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityAutomotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (Canada)
FundersBasic Energy SciencesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsIonomerCatalysisProton exchange membrane fuel cellLayer (electronics)Materials scienceCarbon fibersChemical engineeringMembraneAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryNanotechnologyComposite materialChromatographyOrganic chemistryComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method of imaging ionomer in the catalyst layer (CL) of the catalyst coated membrane (CCM) in the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell was developed using scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM). Component maps for ionomer in CL relative to the catalyst/carbon-support were obtained from STXM images at a few specifically pre-defined energies in the C 1s (on/off a peak characteristic for carbon support in the catalyst layer) and F 1s edges (on/off a peak characteristic for the fluorine in the ionomer). Comparing the different approaches, an optimized strategy to study the spatial distributions of chemical components in the catalyst layer was determined. C 1s multi-energy imaging was most informative for mapping all components of the carbon catalyst support. The F 1s maps offer a rapid and powerful way for visualization of ionomer in the catalyst layer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207