MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221144481 · doi:10.3390/catal12020137

Controlled Transition Metal Nucleated Growth of Carbon Nanotubes by Molten Electrolysis of CO2

2022· article· en· W4221144481 on OpenAlexaff
Xinye Liu, Gad Licht, Xirui Wang, Stuart Licht

Bibliographic record

VenueCatalysts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceChemical engineeringElectrolysisCarbon nanotubeAnodeCarbon fibersNanotechnologyNanomaterialsElectrolyteElectrochemistryCathodeElectrodeChemistryComposite materialComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrolysis of CO2 in molten carbonate has been introduced as an alternative mechanism to synthesize carbon nanomaterials inexpensively at high yield. Until recently, CO2 was thought to be unreactive, making its removal a challenge. CO2 is the main cause of anthropogenic global warming and its utilization and transformation into a stable, valuable material provides an incentivized pathway to mitigate climate change. This study focuses on controlled electrochemical conditions in molten lithium carbonate to split CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere into carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and into various macroscopic assemblies of CNTs, which may be useful for nano-filtration. Different CNT morphologies were prepared electrochemically by variation of the anode and cathode composition and architecture, variation of the electrolyte composition pre-electrolysis processing, and variation of the current application and current density. Individual CNT morphologies’ structures and the CNT molten carbonate growth mechanisms are explored using SEM (scanning electron microscopy), TEM (transmission electron micrsocopy), HAADF (high angle annular dark field), EDX (energy dispersive xray), X-ray diffraction), and Raman methods. The principle commercial technology for CNT production had been chemical vapor deposition, which is an order of magnitude more expensive, generally requires metallo-organics, rather than CO2 as reactants, and can be highly energy and CO2 emission intensive (carries a high carbon positive, rather than negative, footprint).

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations51
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatalystsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207