MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985621086 · doi:10.1016/j.coche.2019.07.003

Understanding and mitigating performance decline in electrochemical deionization

2019· article· en· W2985621086 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xitong Liu, Sneha Shanbhag, Meagan S. Mauter

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMembrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersM.S.I. Foundation
KeywordsCapacitive deionizationDesalinationFoulingMaterials scienceElectrochemistryElectrodeCorrosionDegradation (telecommunications)Environmental scienceChemical engineeringChemistryMetallurgyComputer scienceMembraneEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capacitive deionization based on carbonaceous electrodes represents an energy-efficient technology suitable for low-salinity brackish water desalination where high recovery rates are critical to economic viability. Substituting insertion compounds for carbonaceous materials in electrochemical desalination electrodes enables higher ion adsorption capacities, excellent energy efficiency in higher salinity feedwaters, and selective removal of target ions. Despite the promise of electrochemical desalination processes, the durability of the electrode materials when treating complex waters is a documented issue that has not been systematically investigated. The present work reviews recent work on the impact of fouling on the performance of carbonaceous and insertion-based electrochemical desalination processes; discusses key factors controlling the corrosion/degradation of carbonaceous and insertion-based electrodes used in electrochemical desalination; and identifies potential strategies for improving the fouling tolerance and minimizing the corrosion or degradation of carbonaceous and insertion based electrodes.

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)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Chemical EngineeringSame topicMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207