MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982390902 · doi:10.1002/cctc.201901744

Understanding the Role of SnO<sub>2</sub> Support in Water‐Tolerant Methane Combustion: <i>In situ</i> Observation of Pd(OH)<sub>2</sub> and Comparison with Pd/Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>

2019· article· en· W2982390902 on OpenAlexafffund
William Barrett, Jing Shen, Yongfeng Hu, Robert E. Hayes, Robert W. J. Scott, Natalia Semagina

Bibliographic record

VenueChemCatChem · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMethaneCatalysisChemistryInorganic chemistryPalladiumSteam reformingTin dioxideTinOxygenAnaerobic oxidation of methaneCombustionHydrogenMethane reformerOxideHydrogen productionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative analysis of poisonous Pd hydroxide phase formation during methane combustion in the presence of water is performed via in situ X‐ray absorption spectroscopy from 200 to 500 deg C for palladium catalysts supported on tin and aluminum oxides. Water presence inhibits oxidation of the metallic Pd; for the Pd/Al2O3 catalyst the major oxidation product is Pd(OH)2, with PdO being the dominant phase on the Pd/SnO2 system. Tin dioxide is reduced during methane oxidation in the presence of water, regardless of the excess oxygen in the feed. Temperature‐programmed surface reactions at anaerobic and low‐oxygen conditions revealed that the Pd/SnO2 catalyst has an inability to catalyze methane steam reforming, as opposed to Pd/Al2O3. We suggest that tin oxide extracts hydroxyls from the PdO surface, which makes the latter more active in methane combustion in the presence of water but inactive in methane steam reforming.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemCatChemSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207