Physicochemical Characterization of Mixed RuO<sub>2</sub>−SnO<sub>2</sub> Solid Solutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed SnO 2 −RuO 2 oxides were prepared by high-energy mechanical alloying of various proportions of pure SnO 2 and RuO 2 powders. The physicochemical characterization of the resulting materials was conducted by X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and electrochemical surface analysis. It is shown through XRD analysis that a single-phase (tetragonal) (Sn−Ru)O 2 solid solution is formed over the whole composition range, in which the Sn 4+ and Ru 4+ ions share the same cationic sub-lattice of the rutile-like structure. The surface of the compounds was analyzed by XPS and shows a deficit of Ru atoms, with [Ru] surface = 36 at. % for an equimolar SnO 2 −RuO 2 concentration in the bulk of the sample. In the case of pure nanocrystalline RuO 2, the total surface charge, q T *, the most easily accessible surface charge, q O *, and the less easily accessible surface charge, q I *, are 35.3, 29.0, and 6.3 mC cm - 2 mg - 1, respectively. These surface charges vary linearly with the Ru content at the surface of the electrode, indicating that the surface electrochemical properties of the compounds are dominated by the redox properties of the Ru 4+ cation. The ratio q O */ q T * is close to 0.8 and independent of the surface composition, suggesting that all compounds have a similar morphology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it