Direct Growth of One‐, Two‐, and Three‐Dimensional Nanostructured Materials at Electrode Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, one-dimensional (1D) nanostructured materials primarily focus on nanowires, nanorods, and nanotubes. Two-dimensional (2D) nanomaterials mainly include nanoplates and graphene oxide (GO) sheets, whereas three-dimensional (3D) nanomaterials chiefly comprise nanodendrites and nanoflowers. Various widespread synthesis methods which are currently in common use for the growth of nanomaterials on electrode surfaces, spanning hydrothermal, templated, thermal decomposition, anodization, and chemical deposition, are discussed in the chapter. The direct growth of nanomaterials on a substrate provides a number of advantages, such as an enhanced mechanical interface between the substrate and the grown nanomaterial, greater electron transfer, and higher stability. The chapter describes the mechanism for the fabrication of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanotubes on titanium substrates. The morphologies of the TiO2 nanotubes also significantly depend on the solution temperature, applied voltage, and anodization duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".