Decomposition of cyclohexyl hydroperoxide over bimetallic mesoporous materials containing cobalt and chromium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bimetallic mesoporous Co‐Cr‐TUD‐1 and its counterparts Co‐TUD‐1 and Cr‐TUD‐1 were synthesized by a direct hydrothermal treatment (DHT) method with triethanolamine as a template. The products were characterized by many techniques. Results show that Co and Cr are incorporated into the framework of TUD‐1. The catalytic behaviours of the samples were tested in decomposition of cyclohexyl hydroperoxide (CHHP). Co‐Cr‐TUD‐1 (Si/(Co + Cr) = 25) shows the highest catalytic efficiency with a CHHP conversion of 96.9 % and total selectivity of cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol of 95.9 %, which outperforms Co‐TUD‐1 and Cr‐TUD‐1 and indicates a synergistic effect between Co and Cr in Co‐Cr‐TUD‐1. The catalysts are mainly heterogeneous as shown in various experiments, while the catalytic performances of recovered catalysts declined modestly, indicating non‐negligible amounts of Co and Cr are leached after some cycles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".