MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513507407 · doi:10.1149/1.3653215

The Pt/Ni Modified TiO<sub>2</sub> Nanotubes and its Catalytic Activity Toward Glucose

2011· article· en· W2513507407 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Sadat Mahshid, Sara Mahshid, Ahmad Ghahremaninezhad, Abolghasem Dolati, Mohammad Ghorbani, Shenglian Luo, Lixia Yang, Qingyun Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrochemical sensors and biosensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrodeMaterials scienceCyclic voltammetryScanning electron microscopeElectrochemistryCatalysisNanocompositeChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)SelectivityNanotechnologyCarbon nanotubeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryOpticsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The catalytic activity of Pt/Ni/TiO2 nanotubes electrode toward glucose has been studied. Fabrication of Pt/Ni nanostructures was done in a single-bath solution through electrochemical pulse method by changing the deposition potential between -0.3 and -4 V vs. SCE, respectively. The resulting modified electrode represented high conductivity due to the effective presence of metallic components and uniform surface area caused by dispersion of Pt and Ni nanostructures. The scanning electron microscopy images also confirmed that a large amount of metals colonies were well-dispersed at the edge of the TiO2 nanotubes. In addition, the Pt/Ni TiO2 nanotubes modified electrode exhibited an excellent performance in cyclic voltammetry results by changing the concentration of glucose. The proposed electrode had a wide linear range up to 13 mM with the detection sensitivity of 230 μAmM−1 cm−2 respectively. The experiment results also revealed that the electrode exhibited good selectivity with no interference from other oxidable species.

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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsFrench-language works237,207