MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2947306666 · doi:10.1149/2.0301911jes

In Situ Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry for Electrochemical Studies

2019· article· en· W2947306666 on OpenAlexafffund
Mitchell Brocklebank, James J. Noël, Lyudmila V. Goncharova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsRutherford backscattering spectrometryIn situElectrodeMaterials scienceElectrochemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectromigrationElectrolyteElectrochemical cellMass spectrometryAnodizingAluminiumChemistryThin filmNanotechnologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new in situ ultra-high vacuum (UHV) electrochemical cell containing a liquid electrolyte solution and Ti working electrode was designed and constructed to perform Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), under controlled electrochemical potentials. The depth resolution of RBS allowed for the determination of depth profiles for Ti, O, and other key transported species, in the electrode and in near-surface regions. Upon biasing the Ti electrode, subsequent RBS spectra releveled the time evolution of elemental depth profiles, characteristic of anodization, with Ti, O and Cl being mobile species. The differences between in situ and ex situ RBS measurements are emphasized. This work demonstrates the potential for in situ RBS to become a powerful tool for the investigation of a wide range of electrochemical processes including oxidation, electromigration, and deposition in batteries and other devices.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical Society→Same topicIon-surface interactions and analysis→French-language works237,207→