MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016019453 · doi:10.1021/acsenergylett.0c00536

Molecular Catalysts Boost the Rate of Electrolytic CO<sub>2</sub> Reduction

2020· article· en· W3016019453 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Torbensen, Dorian Joulié, Shaoxuan Ren, Min Wang, Danielle A. Salvatore, Curtis P. Berlinguette, Marc Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Energy Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitut Universitaire de FranceChina Scholarship CouncilAir Liquide
KeywordsElectrolysisElectrochemical reduction of carbon dioxideCatalysisRedoxElectrochemistryMaterials scienceNanotechnologyElectrolyteCopperChemistryInorganic chemistryElectrodeCarbon monoxideMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrolysis is a potentially useful approach for converting carbon dioxide into chemicals and fuels. The most active electrocatalysts for efficiently mediating the carbon dioxide reduction reaction (CO 2 RR) have long been assumed to be solid silver, gold, and copper. However, there is an emerging body of data showing that molecular catalysts can operate at levels of performance commensurate with solid-state catalysts. These recent advances in deploying molecular catalysts present entirely new opportunities for understanding CO 2 RR in electrochemical reactors and tailoring active sites for the selective formation of CO 2 RR products. This Perspective highlights the recent advances and the opportunities for the implementation of molecular electrocatalysts into CO 2 RR electrolyzers.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Energy LettersSame topicCO2 Reduction Techniques and CatalystsFrench-language works237,207