MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242192911 · doi:10.1515/iupac.71.0002

Terminology, Relative Photonic Efficiencies and Quantum Yields in Heterogeneous Photocatalysis. Part II: Experimental Determination of Quantum YieldsA draft version of this paper was published previously in part in [J. Photochem. Photobiol. A:Chem., J. Adv. Oxid. Technol.; IAPS Newsletter and EPA Newsletter] to solicit comments and critiques from the scientific and engineering community. Moreover, during the preparation the draft proposal was submitted to a number of distinguished photochemists and photocatalycists to get their views.

2016· dataset· en· W4242192911 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Trovato Salinaro, Alexei V. Emeline, Jincai Zhao, Hisao Hidaka, V. K. Ryabchuk, Nick Serpone

Bibliographic record

VenueIUPAC Standards Online · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum yieldPhotocatalysisIntegrating sphereQuantumAbsorption (acoustics)Extinction (optical mineralogy)Materials scienceChemistryPhotochemistryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOpticsFluorescenceOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the preceding article [Pure Appl. Chem. 71, 303–320 (1999)] we examined two principal features of heterogeneous photocatalysis that demanded scrutiny: (i) description of photocatalysis and (ii) description of process efficiencies. For the latter we proposed a protocol relative photonic efficiency which could subsequently be converted to quantum yields. A difficulty in expressing a quantum yield in heterogeneous photochemistry is the very nature of the system, either solid/liquid or solid/gas, which places severe restrictions on measurement of the photon flow absorbed by the light harvesting component, herein the photocatalyst TiO2, owing to non-negligible scattering by the particulates. It was imperative therefore to examine the extent of this problem. Extinction and absorption spectra of TiO2 dispersions were determined at low titania loadings by normal absorption spectroscopy and by an integrated sphere method, respectively, to assess the extent of light scattering. The method is compared to the one reported by Grela et al. [J. Phys. Chem. 100, 16940 (1996)] who used a polynomial extrapolation of the light scattered in the visible region into the UV region where TiO2 absorbs significantly. This extrapolation underestimates the scattering component present in the extinction spectra, and will no doubt affect the accuracy of the quantum yield data. Further, we report additional details in assessing limiting photonic efficiencies and quantum yields in heterogeneous photocatalysis.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUPAC Standards OnlineSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207