MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313431584 · doi:10.1002/ange.202218016

2D Transition Metal Dichalcogenides for Photocatalysis

2023· article· en· W4313431584 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruijie Yang, Yingying Fan, Yuefeng Zhang, Liang Mei, Rongshu Zhu, Jiaqian Qin, Jinguang Hu, Zhangxin Chen, Yun Hau Ng, Damien Voiry, Shuang Li, Qingye Lu, Qian Wang, Jimmy C. Yu, Zhiyuan Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
Topic2D Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersShenzhen Science and Technology Innovation ProgramNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Grants CommitteeJapan Society for the Promotion of Science London
KeywordsPhotocatalysisTransition metalNanotechnologyGrapheneMaterials scienceCatalysisChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two‐dimensional (2D) transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs), a rising star in the post‐graphene era, are fundamentally and technologically intriguing for photocatalysis. Their extraordinary electronic, optical, and chemical properties endow them as promising materials for effectively harvesting light and catalyzing the redox reaction in photocatalysis. Here, we present a tutorial‐style review of the field of 2D TMDs for photocatalysis to educate researchers (especially the new‐comers), which begins with a brief introduction of the fundamentals of 2D TMDs and photocatalysis along with the synthesis of this type of material, then look deeply into the merits of 2D TMDs as co‐catalysts and active photocatalysts, followed by an overview of the challenges and corresponding strategies of 2D TMDs for photocatalysis, and finally look ahead this topic.

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: none
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations109
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte ChemieSame topic2D Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207