Comparison of the Electrochemistry of Ni Thin Film and Ni-YSZ Composite Anodes Fabricated by Polymeric Precursor Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research focused on the impedance response of Ni-yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) anodes has provided contradictory results about the preferred equivalent circuit, the meaning of each circuit element, and the rate determining step of the H 2 oxidation reaction. This has been proposed to be due to differences in the morphology of the anode layers between studies, unknown impurity concentrations related to the use of different Ni precursors, and variations in the distributed potentials within porous anode layers. Here, efforts were made to overcome these problems by comparing the impedance response of a dense, Ni thin film anode, deposited on a YSZ electrolyte pellet, with that obtained from a Ni-infiltrated porous YSZ scaffold, but using the same polymeric Ni precursor solution in both cases, thus ensuring that only the morphology of the YSZ phase differed. This revealed that the same general impedance response and the same activation energy was obtained at both anodes when the porous electrode data were fitted to an equivalent circuit that includes a transmission line element. This work thus demonstrates the importance of keeping as many parameters the same as possible in comparative model thin film and composite anode studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".