MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005125566 · doi:10.1149/2.0941504jes

A Survey of In Situ Gas Evolution during High Voltage Formation in Li-Ion Pouch Cells

2015· article· en· W2005125566 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. P. Aiken, Julian Self, R. Petibon, Xin Xia, Jens Paulsen, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteElectrodeVolume (thermodynamics)GraphiteVoltageIonHigh voltageAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CathodeChemistryMaterials scienceComposite materialThermodynamicsChromatographyElectrical engineeringOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Li-ion pouch cells were made to study the factors that influence gas evolution during formation (first charge). Electrode materials, electrolyte additives and temperature were varied. Measurements were made using the Archimedes' In Situ Gas Analyzer at Dalhousie University. When cells are charged to high voltages (>4.2 V) there is gas evolution, presumed to be from reactions on the surface of the positive electrode. This is separate from the gas evolution known to happen at lower voltage (<3.5 V) caused by reactions on the negative electrode. Both evolutions were characterized by the magnitude of volume changes and their onset voltages. Gas volumes appear to increase and onset voltages decrease, respectively, with increasing temperature. Use of the additive prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone at 2% by weight in Li[Ni0.42Mn0.42Co0.16]O2/graphite cells yields smaller volume and higher onset voltage of gas evolution at all temperatures, compared to other additives tested. Certain cathode materials, namely some coated LiCoO2 samples, can be charged to high voltages (≤4.7 V) without producing gas at high voltage.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
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 teacher head, 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

Citations101
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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