Coprecipitation of Nickel−Copper−Aluminum Takovite as Catalyst Precursors for Simultaneous Production of Carbon Nanofibers and Hydrogen
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
A series of nickel-, copper-, and aluminum-containing catalysts at a (Ni+Cu)/Al mole ratio of 3 and Cu/Ni mole ratio in the range of 0.03−0.4 was prepared by coprecipitation from corresponding metal nitrate solutions at alkaline pH. The composition and structure of the precipitates were determined by chemical analysis, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). The XRD patterns confirmed that the precipitates are of hydrotalcite-like structures and, more specifically, they are takovite. The brucite-like layers consist of nickel, copper, and aluminum ions of composition [Cu y Ni x - y Al 1 - x (OH) 2 ] (1 - x )+, while the interlayers consist of CO 3 2- and crystalline water. The observed variation of lattice parameters with copper content led us to conclude that the copper and aluminum ions were randomly substituted for the nickel ions in the brucite layer. The catalytic conversion tests at 670 °C showed a significantly enhanced catalytic reactivity of 2 mol % copper-doped catalysts as compared to a pristine nickel catalyst. A higher copper doping led to a less significant improvement in catalytic reactivity. A scanning electron micrograph (SEM) confirmed the production of carbon nanofibers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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