MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767431637 · doi:10.1002/admi.201700850

Robust Hydrophobic Rare Earth Oxide Composite Electrodeposits

2017· article· en· W2767431637 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Tam, G. Palumbo, U. Erb, Gisele Azimi

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials Interfaces · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsIntegran (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Research Foundation
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite numberWettingComposite materialAbrasiveOxideCeramicNanotechnologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inspired by the lotus leaf, nonwetting surfaces have drawn widespread attention in the field of surface engineering due to their remarkable water repelling characteristics. There are many applications for these surfaces, for instance, self‐cleaning walls and windows, anti‐icing surfaces, or low drag microfluidic channels. However, the adoption of nonwetting surfaces in large scale industrial applications has been hampered by synthesis techniques that are not easily scalable and the limited long term stability and wear robustness of these surfaces in service. This study demonstrates a simple, low cost, and scalable electrochemical technique to produce robust composite coatings with tunable nonwetting properties. The composite coatings are composed of an ultrafine grain nickel matrix with embedded hydrophobic cerium oxide ceramic particles. A comprehensive characterization is performed, including wetting property measurements, electron microscopy, focused ion beam analysis, hardness measurements, and abrasive wear testing to establish the structure–property relationships for these materials. The ultrafine grain structure of the nickel matrix contributes to the high hardness of the composites. As a result of the bimodal CeO2 particle size, hierarchical roughness is present on the surface of the composite, leading to remarkable nonwetting properties, even after 720 m of abrasive wear.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Materials InterfacesSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207