Study of the Wettability of Coke by Different Pitches and Their Blends
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
The properties of coal tar pitch, which is used as the binder material for carbon anode production, strongly affect the anode properties. Pitches have significant differences in their chemical compositions depending on their origin. In this study, four different coal tar pitches and their blends were studied with the aim of understanding the wettability of a calcined petroleum coke by pitch using the sessile-drop test. In this test, contact angle, which is an indication of wettability, is measured. Contact angles decrease with increasing time, and smaller contact angle means better wettability. The chemical properties of pitches and coke were studied using XPS to investigate their interactions and, consequently, the wetting mechanism. The results showed that blending different pitches influences the wettability. The presence of acidic, basic, and heteroatom containing functional groups in pitch might cause acid–base/condensation reactions when they are blended and, thus, influence the wetting behavior of the pitch blend.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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