MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623094618

Evaluation of GaN and InGaN semiconductors as potentiometric anion selective electrodes / by Rozalina Dimitrova.

2017· dissertation· en· W2623094618 on OpenAlexaff
Rozalina Dimitrova

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotentiometric titrationSemiconductorMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsElectrodeIonWide-bandgap semiconductorNanotechnologyChemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Ion selective electrodes (ISEs) are chemical sensors primarily used for in situ analysis and monitoring of air, water, and land. Despite their easy fabrication, low cost, and simple usage, ISEs still suffer from the sensitivity of their response to temperature variations, solution turbidity, interferences from other ions in solution, drift of the electrode potential, membrane fouling, and short lifetime. As a result, investigating new materials to develop ISEs that can address some of these limitations is a worthwhile and challenging topic of research. The excellent mechanical, thermal and chemical stability of gallium nitride (GaN) and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) semiconductors, coupled with their resistance to corrosion and low toxicity if dissolved, are some of the properties that make these materials prime candidates for a variety of sensor applications, particularly at high temperatures and in harsh environments. This thesis evaluates the potential of these two semiconductor materials for replacing conventional ISE membranes with a solid-state semiconductor surface/solution interface. The benefits gained from this novel design of the ISE sensing element are assessed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207