MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383498069 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c02978

Impact of Pitch Modification on Anode Properties: Effect of Additive Type

2023· article· en· W4383498069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFiber-reinforced polymer composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRio TintoUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsAnodeCoal tarCokeMaterials scienceRaw materialPetroleum cokeCarbon fibersComposite materialPulp and paper industryChemical engineeringCoalMetallurgyChemistryOrganic chemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aluminum is one of the major industries in Canada. The main challenges facing the aluminum industry are carbon loss, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, cell performance, and production costs, especially for high-amperage cells. The quality of carbon anodes plays a major role in the stability of cell operation and energy consumption. Anodes are made from petroleum coke, rejected green and baked anodes and butts, as well as coal tar pitch, which binds all of the particles. Although the industry depends on a steady supply of high-quality anodes, the availability of quality anode raw materials-coke and pitch-has decreased. A means of improving raw material quality is to modify their properties. In this work, using two additives, low- and high-quinoline insoluble (LQI and HQI) pitches were modified. These additives enrich the surface functional groups of the pitch, thereby increasing coke-pitch interactions. Various additive concentrations and pitch percentages were assessed. It is found that the choice of additive type has a marked effect on pitch properties, with different additives improving different pitches. Additive 1 is suitable for the HQI pitch, whereas additive 2 modifies the LQI pitch better. Anode properties are improved by modifying one of the pitches, whereas modifying the other pitch affects the anode quality to a lesser extent. Thus, the results showed that the modification of an already good-quality pitch (LQI pitch) does not significantly affect the anode quality. On the other hand, the modification of the inferior-quality pitch (HQI pitch) improved the anode quality and decreased the optimum pitch percentage necessary to obtain good anodes compared to the percentage of the LQI pitch needed. This would help decrease the anode production cost. The wettability tests give an indication of if the additive has the potential to improve the coke-pitch interactions, but it cannot predict the effect of pitch percent.

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.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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