MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308114231 · doi:10.1002/bkcs.12638

Galvanic replacement reaction to prepare catalytic materials

2022· article· en· W4308114231 on OpenAlexaff
Yongju Hong, Sandhya Venkateshalu, Sangyeon Jeong, Gracita M. Tomboc, Jinhyoung Jo, Jong‐Sik Park, Kwangyeol Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Korean Chemical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicElectrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsGalvanic cellNanotechnologyTemplateElectrochemical energy storageCatalysisMaterials scienceElectrochemistryChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Galvanic replacement reaction (GRR) has gained considerable interest as a facile and versatile synthetic method for modulating compositions, morphologies, and corresponding physicochemical properties of metallic nanoparticles. Thus far, extensive knowledge of GRR on monometallic templates has been accumulated, backed with ample experimental data and computational modeling and validation. The GRR templates have recently been extended to other materials such as alloys, oxides, sulfides, and liquid metals. These new materials have demonstrated potential applications in electrochemical energy conversion systems, which have been relatively unexplored for GRR‐originated materials. In this review, the recent findings in GRR on these new template materials are introduced, pointing to the incredible versatility of the GRR methodology in diversifying the catalytic materials classes. We further discuss the remaining critical issues and future research directions of GRRs to fully exploit the potential of GRR in spearheading future advances in electrocatalytic energy conversion and other important 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Korean Chemical SocietySame topicElectrocatalysts for Energy ConversionFrench-language works237,207