MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974018524 · doi:10.1149/1.1739217

In Situ XRD and Electrochemical Study of the Reaction of Lithium with Amorphous Silicon

2004· article· en· W1974018524 on OpenAlexafffund
T. D. Hatchard, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSiliconAmorphous solidElectrochemistryMaterials scienceAnodeLithium (medication)Amorphous siliconGraphiteChemical engineeringCrystalline siliconPhase (matter)NanotechnologyElectrodeMetallurgyCrystallographyChemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon is a very promising candidate to replace graphite as the anode in Li-ion batteries because of its very high theoretical capacity. It has not yet made its way into commercial cells because of severe problems with the charge and discharge cycling of the material. It seems that amorphous silicon and amorphous silicon-containing alloys exhibit much improved cycling performance. Therefore, it is desirable to fully understand the reaction of Li with a-Si. To this end, an in situ X-ray diffraction study of the reaction of lithium with a-Si has been performed. The results confirm that a new crystalline phase is formed below 30 mV vs. as first reported by Obrovac and Christensen in an article published in Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters . However, the crystalline phase only forms for films of a-Si above a critical thickness of about 2 μm. © 2004 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

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 score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1,095
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207