MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331595338 · doi:10.1021/jp105852h

Non-Aqueous Approach to Synthesize Amorphous/Crystalline Metal Oxide-Graphene Nanosheet Hybrid Composites

2010· article· en· W2331595338 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangbo Meng, Dongsheng Geng, Jian Liu, Mohammad Norouzi Banis, Yong Zhang, Ruying Li, Xueliang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneNanosheetMaterials scienceNanocompositeOxideAtomic layer depositionAmorphous solidNanotechnologyHybrid materialGraphene foamMetalGraphene oxide paperLayer (electronics)ChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presently, there is a dramatically increasing interest in developing graphene-supported nanocomposites, due to their unprecedented properties. Apart from the methods exposed in previous studies, this work presents a nonaqueous approach of using atomic layer deposition (ALD) to constitute novel metal oxide-graphene hybrid nanocomposites based on graphene nanosheet (GNS) powders. It is demonstrated that this gas−solid strategy exhibits many unique benefits. It reports for the first time that the as-prepared SnO 2 -GNS nanocomposites are featured with not only tunable morphologies but controllable amorphous and crystalline phases of SnO 2 component as well, using SnCl 4 and H 2 O as the ALD precursors. Furthermore, the determinant factors and underlying mechanisms were outlined and discussed in this work. As a consequence, besides the demonstration of ALD as an important approach for nanoarchitecturing novel metal oxide-GNS composites, the as-synthesized SnO 2 -GNS hybrid nanocomposites provide more choices for many important applications, such as lithium-ion batteries, solar cells, and gas sensing.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations81
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207