The Importance of Nanotechnology in Developing Better Energy Storage Materials for Automotive Transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional electrode materials for lithium-ion storage cells are typically crystalline layered structures such as metal oxides, and graphitic carbons. These materials power billions of portable electronic devices in today's society. However, large-scale, high-capacity storage devices capable of powering hybrid electric vehicles (HEV″s) or their plug-in versions (PHEV's) have much more demanding requirements with respect to safety, cost, and the power they must deliver. Recently, nanostructured solid state materials, which are comprised of two more compositional or structural phases, have been found to show exciting possibilities to meet these criteria. Such concepts are exploited where the intimate mix of components at the nanoscale enhances reversibility, and capacity - essential for new cathode materials that function on the basis of intergrowth structures; and poorly conductive materials where limitations to electron or ion transport must be overcome by judicious design of nanostructured composites. Moreover, by definition, the interphase between the electrode and electrolyte forms a complex nanostructure that must be tailored to optimize transport properties. The research trends and future prospects in these areas are reviewed and discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".