Magnetic CuFe2O4 Spinel–Polypyrrole Pseudocapacitive Composites for Energy Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation focused on the fabrication of ceramic ferrimagnetic CuFe2O4–conductive polypyrrole (PPy) composites for energy storage. CuFe2O4 with a crystal size of 20–30 nm and saturation magnetization of 31.4 emu g−1 was prepared by hydrothermal synthesis, and PPy was prepared by chemical polymerization. High-active-mass composite electrodes were fabricated for energy storage in supercapacitors for operation in a sodium sulfate electrolyte. The addition of PPy to CuFe2O4 resulted in a decrease in charge transfer resistance and an increase in capacitance in the range from 1.20 F cm−2 (31 F g−1) to 4.52 F cm−2 (117.4 F g−1) at a 1 mV s−1 sweep rate and from 1.17 F cm−2 (29.9 F g−1) to 4.60 F cm−2 (120.1 F g−1) at a 3 mA cm−2 current density. The composites showed higher capacitance than other magnetic ceramic composites of the same mass containing PPy in the same potential range and exhibited improved cyclic stability. The magnetic behavior of the composites was influenced by the magnetic properties of ferrimagnetic CuFe2O4 and paramagnetic PPy. The composites showed a valuable combination of capacitive and magnetic properties and enriched materials science of magnetic supercapacitors for novel applications based on magnetoelectric and magnetocapacitive properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".