MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808586993 · doi:10.1039/c7cs00777a

The polyol process: a unique method for easy access to metal nanoparticles with tailored sizes, shapes and compositions

2018· review· en· W2808586993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicIron oxide chemistry and applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPolyolNanoparticleMaterials scienceProcess (computing)NanotechnologyMetalProcess engineeringComputer scienceMetallurgyEngineeringComposite materialPolyurethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After about three decades of development, the polyol process is now widely recognized and practised as a unique soft chemical method for the preparation of a large variety of nanoparticles which can be used in important technological fields. It offers many advantages: low cost, ease of use and, very importantly, already proven scalability for industrial applications. Among the different classes of inorganic nanoparticles which can be prepared in liquid polyols, metals were the first reported. This review aims to give a comprehensive account of the strategies used to prepare monometallic nanoparticles and multimetallic materials with tailored size and shape. As regards monometallic materials, while the preparation of noble as well as ferromagnetic metals is now clearly established, the scope of the polyol process has been extended to the preparation of more electropositive metals, such as post-transition metals and semi-metals. The potential of this method is also clearly displayed for the preparation of alloys, intermetallics and core-shell nanostructures with a very large diversity of compositions and architectures.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.321 · 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