Study on the electrochemical behaviour of Al <sup>3+</sup> in <scp> LiCl‐KCl‐AlCl <sub>3</sub> </scp> melt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The electrochemical behaviour of Al 3+ reduction on a tungsten electrode in LiCl‐KCl‐AlCl 3 molten salt was investigated by electrochemical techniques. Using cyclic voltammetry (CV) and square wave voltammetry (SWV), Al 3+ was reduced to Al in one step, and Li was deposited on Al to form Al‐Li alloys of different compositions. According to chronoamperometry (CA), co‐deposition of Li‐Al alloys can be obtained at cathode current densities greater than 0.045 A cm −2 or cathode potentials lower than −2.28 V (vs. Ag/AgCl). The apparent standard potential was calculated using the equilibrium electrode potential obtained from the open‐circuit chronopotentiometry. Al 3+ diffusion coefficient calculated by CV at 703 K is 0.82 × 10 −5 cm 2 /s. In addition, the diffusion activation energy of Al 3+ in LiCl‐KCl‐AlCl 3 molten salt was also obtained using the Arrhenius equation. The linear polarization was used to calculate exchange current density at different temperatures. Based on the theoretical model of metal nucleation deposition developed by Scharifker and Hills, the nucleation process of Al 3+ involves instantaneous nucleation in the range of 673~763 K.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".