MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414223954 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.5c05566

Ultrahigh Temperature Purification of Graphite for the Development of a Continuous Process

2025· article· en· W4414223954 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yewen Tan, Marc Duchesne, Anna Doninger, Igor Barsukov

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFiber-reinforced polymer composites
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsGraphiteImpurityAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Residence time (fluid dynamics)Elemental analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a study of ultrahigh temperature purification of natural Canadian graphite flakes. The concentrated natural graphite flakes were purified using two test facilities, an ultrahigh temperature fixed bed furnace and an ultrahigh temperature fast-heating counterflow reactor. With the fixed bed furnace, the natural graphite flakes were purified at 2500 or 2800 °C for 15-120 min. With the counterflow reactor, the residence time was ∼20-25 min, with an average temperature of 2700 °C and higher local temperatures due to electric arcing. The heat-treated samples were characterized by using several different analysis techniques. The results showed that the samples treated with the fast-heating counterflow reactor reached a very high purity above 99.9 wt % carbon. The samples treated at 2800 °C in the fixed bed furnace reached a similar purity. At the lower temperature of 2500 °C, a similar purity could only be achieved with a duration of at least 60 min. Four elemental analysis techniques to quantify impurities in graphite were evaluated in this work, with a focus on elements that disrupt the performance of Li-ion batteries, such as magnesium, aluminum, iron, copper, and silicon. The analysis results with the original graphite flakes and the heat-treated graphite flakes showed that significant differences exist among the various analysis techniques. For some critical elements, such as iron and silicon, the detected concentrations could differ by more than 1 order of magnitude.

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 score0.003

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicFiber-reinforced polymer compositesFrench-language works237,207