MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185816357 · doi:10.1149/ma2021-019473mtgabs

Development of Graphene-Based Nanocomposites for Hydrogen Storage

2021· article· en· W3185816357 on OpenAlexaff
Emamnuel Boateng, Aicheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen storageHeteroatomGrapheneHydrogenMaterials scienceNanotechnologyPhysisorptionChemisorptionHydrogen fuelHydrogen economyCarbon fibersChemical engineeringChemistryAdsorptionOrganic chemistryComposite materialComposite numberEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen economy is an envisioned approach with potential to addressing the increasing global energy consumption and emission issues. However, as one of the fundamental elements of the hydrogen economy, storage of hydrogen in a lightweight, compact, and safe manner remains the most serious bottleneck. Gaseous and liquid hydrogen storage methods continue to dominate for commercial usage; however, they have been found to be unsafe and expensive. Consequently, solid-state hydrogen storage has been attracting considerable interests, where hydrogen may be stored via physisorption (carbon-based materials and metal organic frameworks) or chemisorption (metal and complex hydrides) [1-3]. In this presentation, recent advances in graphene-based materials with a high surface area and enhanced storage capacity for solid-state hydrogen storage are highlighted. Specifically, this presentation focuses on the development of uniformly dispersed metal nanoparticles (NPs), for example Pd NPs, on a heteroatom-doped reduced graphene oxide (rGO). Our study has shown that the doping of the heteroatoms (such as boron, nitrogen etc.) effectively suppresses possible metal cluster formation, resulting in uniform distribution of the Pd NPs on the modified rGO. The effect of the doping of different heteroatoms and the decoration with Pd NPs on the hydrogen uptake and release is discussed. [1] S. K. Konda, and A. Chen, Mater. Today, 19 , 100 (2016). [2] E. Boateng, and A. Chen, Mater. Today Adv ., 6 , 100022 (2020). [3] E. Boateng, J. S. Dondapati, A. R. Thiruppathi, and A. Chen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy , 45 , 28951 (2020).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicHydrogen Storage and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207