MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973528056 · doi:10.1149/1.3625232

Interpreting High Precision Coulometry Results on Li-ion Cells

2011· article· en· W1973528056 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Aaron Smith, J. C. Burns, D. J. Xiong, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoulometryElectrolyteFaraday efficiencyGraphiteElectrodeDissolutionMaterials scienceIonAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryInorganic chemistryElectrochemistryMetallurgyPhysical chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The High Precision Charger at Dalhousie University can be used to accurately measure the Coulombic Efficiency (CE) and the charge and discharge capacity endpoint slippages per cycle (Δ d and Δ c , respectively) of Li-ion full cells and Li/electrode half cells. If the CE is not exactly 1.0000 and the endpoints slip then this must be due to parasitic reactions between the electrode materials and the electrolyte in the cell. The various parasitic currents and charges associated with: solid electrolyte interface growth; electrolyte oxidation; transition metal dissolution and positive electrode damage are considered using a Li inventory model. The mathematical relations between the parasitic currents and the measured CE, Δ d and Δ c are derived. Example data collected on both Li/graphite, Li/LiCoO 2 half cells as well as both graphite/LiCoO 2 and graphite/LiMn 2 O 4 Li-ion cells are used to illustrate how high precision coulometry results can be used to help elucidate cell degradation mechanisms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations302
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207