MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317110464 · doi:10.1524/zpch.2012.0280

Measurements of the Potentials of Zero Free Charge and Zero Total Charge for 1-thio- ± b<i>β</i>-D-glucose and DPTL Modified Au(111) Surface in Different Electrolyte Solutions

2012· article· en· W2317110464 on OpenAlexfundno aff
ZhangFei Su, J. Jay Leitch, Jacek Lipkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPoint of zero chargeElectrolyteChemistryElectrodeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectrochemistryAdsorptionZero (linguistics)Charge (physics)Surface chargeInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryChromatographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The immersion method was used to measure the potential of zero free charge ( E pzfc ) of a bare Au(111) electrode and the electrode modified by self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of 1-thio- β -D-glucose ( β -Tg) and 2,3-di- O -phytanyl- sn -glycerol-1-tetraethylene glycol-D,L- α -lipoic acid ester (DPTL). The measurements were performed in three electrolyte solutions: 0.1 M NaH 2 PO 4 , 0.1 MKClO 4 and 0.1 M NaF. The E pzc of the Au(111) electrode has different values in these electrolyte solutions due to the specific adsorption of phosphate and fluoride anions on the Au(111) surface. In contrast, when the gold surface is covered by a SAM of β -Tg, the adsorption of anions is suppressed and similar values of E pzfc were measured in the three electrolytes. Additional chronocoulometric experiments were performed to determine the potentials of the zero total charge ( E pztc ) for the thiol covered electrode. Significant differences between numerical values of potentials of the zero free charge E pzfc and potentials of the zero total charge E pztc were observed.

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 score0.951

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Physikalische ChemieSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207