MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221123524 · doi:10.3390/nano12071141

Phosphorus-Doped Graphene Electrocatalysts for Oxygen Reduction Reaction

2022· review· en· W4221123524 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinxing Zhan, Xin Tong, Manqi Gu, Juan Tian, Zijian Gao, Liying Ma, Yadian Xie, Zhangsen Chen, Hariprasad Ranganathan, Gaixia Zhang, Shuhui Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersScience and Technology Program of Guizhou ProvinceFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCentre québécois sur les matériaux fonctionnels
KeywordsGrapheneMaterials scienceNanotechnologyDopingCatalysisGraphene foamPhosphorusOxygen reductionGraphene oxide paperChemistryElectrodeElectrochemistryMetallurgyOptoelectronicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing cheap and earth-abundant electrocatalysts with high activity and stability for oxygen reduction reactions (ORRs) is highly desired for the commercial implementation of fuel cells and metal-air batteries. Tremendous efforts have been made on doped-graphene catalysts. However, the progress of phosphorus-doped graphene (P-graphene) for ORRs has rarely been summarized until now. This review focuses on the recent development of P-graphene-based materials, including the various synthesis methods, ORR performance, and ORR mechanism. The applications of single phosphorus atom-doped graphene, phosphorus, nitrogen-codoped graphene (P, N-graphene), as well as phosphorus, multi-atoms codoped graphene (P, X-graphene) as catalysts, supporting materials, and coating materials for ORR are discussed thoroughly. Additionally, the current issues and perspectives for the development of P-graphene materials are proposed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207