MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241217361 · doi:10.31224/osf.io/gmp2h

Electrospun polymeric nanofibrous membranes for water treatment

2018· preprint· en· W4241217361 on OpenAlexaff
Monika R. Snowdon, Robert L. Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrospinningMembraneMaterials scienceNanofiberFiltration (mathematics)NanotechnologyNanomaterialsPorosityFabricationPolymerWater treatmentChemical engineeringComposite materialEnvironmental engineeringChemistryEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A necessity for water filtration technology, due to global pollution and population growth, has led to an increase in attention to advanced nanomaterials that can aid in the purification of air and water. This size-dependent filtration is possible via nanofibrous membranes as they contain high porosity and this pore size is tunable through the fabrication process. Because of this tunability in the nanofibril membrane composition and structure, they possess promising straining abilities, such as high permeability and selectivity, as well as low fouling. There are a variety of polymer blends or organic/inorganic nanofillers that can be used depending on filtration needs. The production of nanofibers consists of various avenues such as synthetic templates, separation by different phases, nanoparticle self-assembly, and most widespread, electrospinning. Electrospinning is prevalent owing to its ease of use and low cost compared to template and self- assembly processes. This chapter describes the multifaceted progression governing electrospinning and its working factors as well as the environmental settings that form nanofibers and their resultant membranes. Additionally, the various designs of electrospinning apparatuses' and review of the methods used to prepare multifunctional composite electrospun nanofibrous membranes will be discussed. Past achievements and current challenges will be provided. Conclusions and perspectives are specified fitting to studied progress so far as well as future needs with regards to water treatment, with a particular focus on industrial applications.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications→French-language works237,207→