MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220880601 · doi:10.1002/adma.202201547

Emerging Trends in Sustainable CO<sub>2</sub>‐Management Materials

2022· review· en· W4220880601 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhen Zhang, Yun Zheng, Lanting Qian, Dan Luo, Haozhen Dou, Guobin Wen, Aiping Yu, Zhongwei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsNanotechnologySystems engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the rising level of atmospheric CO 2 worsening climate change, a promising global movement toward carbon neutrality is forming. Sustainable CO 2 management based on carbon capture and utilization (CCU) has garnered considerable interest due to its critical role in resolving emission‐control and energy‐supply challenges. Here, a comprehensive review is presented that summarizes the state‐of‐the‐art progress in developing promising materials for sustainable CO 2 management in terms of not only capture, catalytic conversion (thermochemistry, electrochemistry, photochemistry, and possible combinations), and direct utilization, but also emerging integrated capture and in situ conversion as well as artificial‐intelligence‐driven smart material study. In particular, insights that span multiple scopes of material research are offered, ranging from mechanistic comprehension of reactions, rational design and precise manipulation of key materials (e.g., carbon nanomaterials, metal–organic frameworks, covalent organic frameworks, zeolites, ionic liquids), to industrial implementation. This review concludes with a summary and new perspectives, especially from multiple aspects of society, which summarizes major difficulties and future potential for implementing advanced materials and technologies in sustainable CO 2 management. This work may serve as a guideline and road map for developing CCU material systems, benefiting both scientists and engineers working in this growing and potentially game‐changing area.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations138
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207