From computational screening to the synthesis of a promising OER catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for new materials can be laborious and expensive. Given the challenges that mankind faces today concerning the climate change crisis, the need to accelerate materials discovery for applications like water-splitting could be very relevant for a renewable economy. In this work, we introduce a computational framework to predict the activity of oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalysts, in order to accelerate the discovery of materials that can facilitate water splitting. We use this framework to screen 6155 ternary-phase spinel oxides and have isolated 33 candidates which are predicted to have potentially high OER activity. We have also trained a machine learning model to predict the binding energies of the *O, *OH and *OOH intermediates calculated within this workflow to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between electronic structure descriptors and OER activity. Out of the 33 candidates predicted to have high OER activity, we have synthesized three compounds and characterized them using linear sweep voltammetry to gauge their performance in OER. From these three catalyst materials, we have identified a new material, Co2.5Ga0.5O4, that is competitive with benchmark OER catalysts in the literature with a low overpotential of 220mV at 10mAcm-2 and a Tafel slope at 56.0 mV dec-1. Given the vast size of chemical space as well as the success of this technique to date, we believe that further application of this computational framework based on the high-throughput virtual screening of materials can lead to the discovery of additional novel, high-performing OER catalysts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".