MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510864641 · doi:10.1080/10601325.2016.1212308

Evaluation of polymeric nanocomposites for the detection of toxic gas analytes

2016· article· en· W2510864641 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine M. E. Stewart, Alexander Penlidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Macromolecular Science Part A · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormaldehydeMethanolNanocompositeOxideAcetaldehydeNon-blocking I/OInorganic chemistryPolymerAcetoneEthanolTitanium dioxideChemistryMaterials scienceAnilineNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysisNanotechnologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four different metal oxide nanoparticles, copper oxide (CuO), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), nickel oxide (NiO), and titanium dioxide (TiO2), were added to poly (2,5-dimethyl aniline) (P25DMA) during synthesis to create different polymer nanocomposites. These polymer nanocomposites were evaluated as potential sensing materials for six different gas analytes (acetaldehyde, acetone, benzene, ethanol, formaldehyde, and methanol). It was found that CuO did not incorporate into the P25DMA and only a small percentage of Al2O3 was incorporated. However, both NiO and TiO2 were incorporated into the P25DMA at the same concentration as during the synthesis step. Overall, the type of metal oxide significantly affected the morphology of the sensing material and the amount of each analyte sorbed. For example, P25DMA doped with 5 wt% Al2O3 had high selectivity towards ethanol, whereas P25DMA doped with 20 wt% TiO2 sorbed the most ethanol. However, P25DMA doped with 20 wt% TiO2 also sorbed a high amount of formaldehyde, making P25DMA doped with 20 wt% TiO2 less selective than P25DMA doped with 5 wt% Al2O3 towards ethanol with respect to formaldehyde.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Macromolecular Science Part ASame topicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and SensorsFrench-language works237,207