Preparation of Co<sub>1−<i>z</i></sub>Al<sub><i>z</i></sub>(OH)<sub>2</sub>(NO<sub>3</sub>)<sub><i>z</i></sub> Layered Double Hydroxides and Li(Co<sub>1−<i>z</i></sub>Al<sub><i>z</i></sub>)O<sub>2</sub>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precipitate formed by the addition of an aqueous solution of Co(NO 3 ) 2 and Al(NO 3 ) 3 to LiOH solution has been thoroughly studied as a function of the Al:(Al+Co) ratio, z, for 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, using X-ray diffraction and thermogravimetric analysis. For 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.2, the precipitate was a mixed phase of Co(OH) 2 and the layered double hydroxide (LDH) Co 0.8 Al 0.2 (OH) 2 (NO 3 ) 0.2 · n H 2 O. For 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 0.4 the precipitate was a single LDH phase containing both NO 3 − and CO 3 2− ions to compensate the Al 3+ charge. As z increases in this range, the amount of NO 3 − decreases and the amount of CO 3 2− increases. For z > 0.4, the precipitate was a two phase mixture of an LDH phase and Al(OH) 3 . Li[Co 1− z Al z ]O 2 samples were made from the coprecipitated products for 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5, by calcining the coprecipitate and Li 2 CO 3 . These Li[Co 1− z Al z ]O 2 samples were compared to samples of the same stoichiometries made by the direct solid state reaction of Co 3 O 4, Al(OH) 3, and Li 2 CO 3 . The lattice constants varied smoothly with z for the Li[Co 1− z Al z ]O 2 samples made from the coprecipitate. The lattice constants of the solid-state samples deviate from these for z > 0.15, suggesting the Al is not uniformly incorporated for z > 0.15 in the solid-state samples. The consequences of this are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it