Cu Electrodeposition on Nanostructured MoS<sub>2</sub> and WS<sub>2</sub> and Implications for HER Active Site Determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cu electrodeposition in both underpotential and overpotential regimes on nanostructured MoS2 and WS2 prepared by plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition has been studied in detail. A combination of electrochemical methods, advanced characterization by X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) as well as theoretical modelling were employed to reveal Cu adsorption modes on transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) from initial stages until bulk deposition. Since Cu UPD on TMDs has been used recently to evaluate the number of electrochemically active sites (N AS) for H2 evolution reaction, we evaluate and discuss here the implications of the Cu electrodeposition phenomena on nanostructured MoS2 and WS2 gauging the general applicability of the Cu UPD method for number of HER active sites determination in TMDs. Although an apparently better correlation of HER current density with Cu UPD charge than with double layer capacitance is found, the Cu UPD method cannot be used quantitatively because of the absence of a clear H UPD phenomenon on the studied nanostructured TMDs. This is in contrast to platinum group metal catalysts where H UPD and Cu UPD sites are strongly correlated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".