MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401887317 · doi:10.1115/1.4066340

Investigation of Metal-H2O Systems at Elevated Temperatures: Part II. SnO2(s) Solubility Data and New Sn Pourbaix Diagrams at 298.15 K and 358.15 K

2024· article· en· W4401887317 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Olga Y. Palazhchenko, Matthew H. Kaye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPourbaix diagramTinAqueous solutionPhase diagramSolubilityMaterials scienceZirconium alloyAlloyThermodynamicsDissolutionZirconiumPhase (matter)Inorganic chemistryMetallurgyChemistryPhysical chemistryElectrochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Zircaloy alloy system (1.2–1.7 wt.% Sn) provides an excellent basis to study the effect of temperature on Pourbaix diagrams, as Zircaloy fuel rods in a CANadian Deuterium UraniumTM (CANDU) reactor are exposed to an aqueous phase coolant in the range 250 °C (523.15 K) to 310 °C (583.15 K). In addition to its presence in Zircaloy, much of the thermochemical data for tin, particularly for the aqueous species, is unavailable or uncorroborated. This paper presents tin Pourbaix diagrams at 85 °C (358.15 K) alongside the reconstructed 25 °C (298.15 K) diagram. Solid-aqueous phase SnO2 equilibria were used to determine thermochemical data for tin +IV species in a batch vessel with in situ pH measurement. Solubilities were used to calculate the Gibbs energies of Sn complexes. The SnOH3+ and Sn(OH)5− species were incorporated into the 25 °C and 85 °C diagrams.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207