MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749851097 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b01914

Rapid Quantification of Film Thickness and Metal Loading for Electrocatalytic Metal Oxide Films

2017· article· en· W2749851097 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevan E. Dettelbach, Michael Kolbeck, Aoxue Huang, Jingfu He, Curtis P. Berlinguette

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsElectrocatalystMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeIridiumOxideNickelAmorphous solidMetalThin filmNickel oxideCatalysisChemical engineeringElectrochemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialNanotechnologyMetallurgyElectrodeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thicknesses and metal loadings of amorphous nickel, iron, and iridium oxide films widely used for solar fuel electrocatalysis were determined by cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy measurements. The thicknesses for a series of films, which were systematically varied from 10 to 400 nm using photodeposition techniques, were accurately measured by cross-sectional SEM using a protocol that successfully resolves the relevant catalyst layers. XRF measurements recorded on each of the films provided a strong linear correlation ( R 2 > 0.97) with the thicknesses determined by cross-sectional SEM. The electrochemical surface areas (ECSAs) determined by double-layer capacitance measurements, a technique widely used in the electrocatalysis community, showed a linear relationship for iridium oxide film thicknesses but not with those consisting of nickel and iron. These results highlight the limitations of using ECSA to determine catalyst film thicknesses and metal loadings. The noninvasive XRF technique is demonstrated to be a far superior method for reporting on the thickness and loadings of thin metal oxide films.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207