MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microstructure and Mechanical Behavior of CaCu<sub>3</sub>Ti<sub>4</sub>O<sub>12</sub> Ceramics Hollow Fiber Prepared via Dry/Wet Spinning Method

2020· article· en· W3088227397 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Ahmadipour, Tunmise Ayode Otitoju, Mohammad Arjmand, Zainal Arifin Ahmad, Swee‐Yong Pung

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDielectric properties of ceramics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthMicrostructureCrystalliteFiberComposite materialCeramicPorosityElongationMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry/wet method was used to prepare CaCuTi4O12 (CCTO) hollow fibers (HFs) and then the structural and physico-mechanical properties of HFs were characterized by XRD, FESEM, BET and tensile strength, respectively. The outer diameter and thickness of CCTO HFs were found to be 650 μm and 390 μm, respectively. A finger-like macrovoids and sponge-like was observed inside the membrane with a denser structure in the outer layer. It was observed that the crystallite size was increased from 28.5 nm to 37.0 nm while the average pore diameter was decreased from 34.65 nm to 29.16 nm in CCTO hollow fiber with 1.0 wt.% CCTO. In addition, the tensile strength of HFS was significantly improved from 4.84 MPa to 5.54 MPa and elongation at break was decreased from 6.97 % to 5.09 % which is ascribed to the reduction in porosity. All the results indicated the significant effect of CCTO content on properties of CCTO hollow fibers. The finding in this study could lead to a new direction to enhance the properties of HFS with potential application in membranes.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicDielectric properties of ceramicsFrench-language works237,207