MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386165433 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25073

Characterization of niobium pentoxide synthesized by spray pyrolysis technique and comparison with hydrothermal method

2023· article· en· W4386165433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rodolfo de Andrade Schaffner, Elson Oliveira, Roberta Carolina Pelissari Rizzo Domingues, Leandro da Conceição, Carlos Itsuo Yamamoto, Graciela Inês Bolzón de Muñiz, Helton José Alves

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiobium pentoxideMaterials scienceCrystallinityNiobiumPyrolysisTransmission electron microscopyHydrothermal circulationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chemical engineeringDynamic light scatteringParticle sizeMineralogyNanoparticleNanotechnologyComposite materialChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Niobium pentoxide (Nb 2 O 5 ) is a polymorphic ceramic with semiconductor characteristics applied in various fields of study. In this work, the Nb 2 O 5 synthesis by the spray pyrolysis route was compared to the hydrothermal technique. The obtained materials were characterized by N 2 physisorption (BET‐N 2 ), average particle size distribution by dynamic light scattering (DLS), X‐ray diffractometry (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy. The material synthesized by the spray pyrolysis technique presented high specific area and pore volume, high crystallinity, homogeneity, and nanometric particles, thus representing a potential technique for the Nb 2 O 5 synthesis.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207