MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EVOLUTION AND CHARACTERIZATIONS OF AURIVILLIUS BISMUTH TITANATE BY MODIFIED SOLID STATE PROCESSING

2019· article· en· W2944688458 on OpenAlexaff
M. Shahnawaz, Santosh Khan, Soumya Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering Research [TJER] · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric Materials
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAurivilliusCrystalliteNanocrystalline materialMaterials scienceBismuth titanateGrain sizeAnnealing (glass)Band gapAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyCrystallographyFerroelectricityNanotechnologyComposite materialMetallurgyOptoelectronicsChemistryDielectricOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild agate mortar activation followed by sintering of precursors, in resemblance to modified solid state process, was studied for synthesis of the aurivillius bismuth titanate. Hand on mill activation was carried out for eight hours followed by annealing treatment at 1000°C for 12 hours in presence of air atmosphere to obtain the proper phase. Scherrer’s formula was utilized to estimate crystallite size along with planes of orientation. Crystallite size was about 65nm while prominent peaks of orientations were (-117), (006), (111), (200) and others. FESEM and TEM studies were carried to obtain the morphology and estimated grain size of the synthesized aurivillius compound. Morphological features execute the material system to be nanocrystalline in nature as estimated from grain size measurement in correspondence with XRD crystallite size estimation. FTIR analysis confirms M-O coordinations of synthesized modified perovskite (aurivillius) sample. Optical property was evaluated from UV-VIS analysis with prominent absorption spectra in the visible region. Tauc plot was used to estimate the band gap to be about 2.86eV & 2eV for both direct and indirect transitions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Engineering Research [TJER]Same topicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric MaterialsFrench-language works237,207