Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide composite thin films were prepared on Corning 7059 glass substrates by co-sputtering. The reactive gas-surroundings used was ultrahigh purity oxygen. To analyze the structural, optical and photocatalytic properties of the ZnO–TiO2 samples, X-ray diffraction (XRD), atomic force microscopy (AFM), optical absorption, Raman spectroscopy and methylene blue bleaching were carried out at room temperature. XRD pat- terns indicate the presence of TiO2 (anatase and rutile phases), ZnO, ZnTiO3, and Zn2 TiO4 crystalline structures. AFM images allow the observation of non-homogeneous surface in the ZnO–TiO2 system, suggesting the separation of different crystalline phases in the composite. Raman studies exhibit different spectra in the films depending on the area analyzed, which can be interpreted as a result of the existence of well separated crystalline regions as seen in AFM images. The photocatalytic activity (PA) of TiO –ZnO–ZnTiO3–Zn2 TiO4 composite, as expected for adequate coupling semiconductors, is larger than PA of ZnO and TiO2 oxides, used as references. A simple proposal about the probable alignment of the conduction band, the valence band, and the Fermi level is included.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".