MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037439791 · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16830-4

Inverse iron oxide/metal catalysts from galvanic replacement

2020· article· en· W3037439791 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yifeng Zhu, Xin Zhang, Katherine Koh, Libor Kovařík, John L. Fulton, Kevin M. Rosso, Oliver Y. Gutiérrez

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryArgonne National LaboratoryBasic Energy SciencesBiological and Environmental ResearchOffice of ScienceCanadian Light SourceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsOxideMaterials scienceMetalGalvanic cellCatalysisIron oxideNanoparticleMagnetiteNanostructureNanotechnologyChemical engineeringNoble metalInorganic chemistryRedoxPlatinumChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Key chemical transformations require metal and redox sites in proximity at interfaces; however, in traditional oxide-supported materials, this requirement is met only at the perimeters of metal nanoparticles. We report that galvanic replacement can produce inverse FeO x /metal nanostructures in which the concentration of oxide species adjoining metal domains is maximal. The synthesis involves reductive deposition of rhodium or platinum and oxidation of Fe 2+ from magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ). We discovered a parallel dissolution and adsorption of Fe 2+ onto the metal, yielding inverse FeO x -coated metal nanoparticles. This nanostructure exhibits the intrinsic activity in selective CO 2 reduction that simple metal nanoparticles have only at interfaces with the support. By enabling a simple way to control the surface functionality of metal particles, our approach is not only scalable but also enables a versatile palette for catalyst design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207