MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012748748 · doi:10.1021/cm000345g

Rhombohedral Form of Li<sub>3</sub>V<sub>2</sub>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>3</sub> as a Cathode in Li-Ion Batteries

2000· article· en· W2012748748 on OpenAlexaff
Joël Gaubicher, Călin Wurm, Gillian R. Goward, Christian Masquelier, Linda F. Nazar

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonoclinic crystal systemFast ion conductorIonCrystallographyFormula unitCathodeChemistryRedoxPhase (matter)Crystal structureTrigonal crystal systemMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Inorganic chemistryElectrodeElectrolytePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ion exchange from the monoclinic NASICON phase of Na3V2(PO4)3 results in the new lithiated form of Li3V2(PO4)3, with unit cell parameters a = 8.316(1) Å and c = 22.484(1) Å in the space group R3̄. It exhibits a reversible V3+/V4+ redox couple at an attractive average potential of ∼3.8V vs Li corresponding to the extraction of 2 Li in the voltage window 3.0−4.1 V (125 mA·h/g). Oxidation is characterized by a two-phase process with an equilibrium potential of 3.77 V, which results in an 8% contraction of the c axis of the original rhombohedral unit cell as a result of partial population of the Li sites along the c axis. This is supported by solid-state 7Li NMR data, which shows that the transformation is accompanied by conversion of the site in the R3̄ cell at 85 ppm to one Li site at 62 ppm in LiV2(PO4)3. At least 1.3Li can be reversibly reinserted into the framework on discharge.

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 score0.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations272
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207