MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2350305232

Photocatalytic Capability of Prepared TiO_2/AC

2005· article· es· W2350305232 on OpenAlexaff
Cfc Key

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhodamine BAnatasePhotocatalysisActivated carbonMaterials scienceTitanium dioxideDegradation (telecommunications)RhodamineChemical engineeringCarbon fibersUltravioletTitaniumPhase (matter)IrradiationNuclear chemistryPhotochemistryCatalysisComposite materialChemistryOptoelectronicsComposite numberOpticsOrganic chemistryMetallurgyFluorescenceAdsorptionElectronic engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Titanium dioxide bonded activated carbon (TiO2/AC) was prepared via sol-gel method by a carrier of activated carbon. SEM, TG-DTA and XRD characterized TiO2/AC with regard to its components, structure and size. The photocatalytic activity of the prepared TiO2/AC was investigated by the degradation reaction of Rhodamine B radiated with ultraviolet light (UV lamp). The results show that the size of TiO2 grains is about 30 nm~60 nm in TiO2/AC composites. The crystalline phase of TiO2 mainly belongs to anatase. TiO2 grains, which are tightly connected with activated carbon carriers, are not planar uniting. The surface area of TiO2/AC is bigger than that of the activated carbon carrier. TiO2/AC may get almost 100% of the Rhodamine B removal after 200 minutes under UV irradiation while P25 reaches the same result in 5 h. TiO2/AC shows high photoactivity for Rhodamine B degradation; in addition, it can be easily separated from the solution.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207