Effect of Synthesis Conditions on CuO-NiO Nanocomposites Synthesized via Saponin-Green/Microwave Assisted-Hydrothermal Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents the synthesis of CuO-NiO nanocomposites under different synthesis conditions. Nanocomposites were synthesized by merging a green synthesis process with a microwave-assisted hydrothermal method. The synthesis conditions were as follows: concentration of the metal precursors (0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 M), pH (9, 10, and 11), synthesis temperature (150 °C, 200 °C, and 250 °C), microwave treatment time (15, 30, and 45 min), and extract concentration (20 and 40 mL of 1 g saponin/10 mL water, and 30 mL of 2 g saponin/10 mL water). The phases and crystallite sizes of the calcined nanocomposites were characterized using XRD and band gap via UV-Vis spectroscopy, and their morphologies were investigated using SEM and TEM. The XRD results confirmed the formation of a face-centered cubic phase for nickel oxide, while copper oxide has a monoclinic phase. The calculated crystallite size was in the range of 29-39 nm. The direct band gaps of the samples prepared in this work were in the range of 2.39-3.17 eV.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".