MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042342898 · doi:10.1063/1.1388214

A system for performing simultaneous <i>in situ</i> atomic force microscopy/optical microscopy measurements on electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries

2001· article· en· W2042342898 on OpenAlexafffund
Luc Beaulieu, Vivien K. Cumyn, K. W. Eberman, L. J. Krause, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGloveboxMaterials scienceElectrodeLithium (medication)Optical microscopeSputteringWorking electrodeMicroscopyElectrochemical cellThin filmMicroscopeKelvin probe force microscopeNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsElectrochemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialOpticsScanning electron microscopeAtomic force microscopyMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An atomic force microscope (AFM) equipped with an optical charge coupled device camera has been placed in an Ar filled glovebox for the purpose of studying the change in morphology of electrode materials as they react with lithium. In order to minimize noise induced by vibration, the AFM is mounted on granite blocks suspended from the ceiling of the glovebox by a combination of flexible rubber cords and metal springs. The AFM, which is equipped with an environmental chamber surrounding the sample, is then enclosed in a specially constructed draft shield that allows the circulation of Ar gas by the purification system during imaging. A special electrochemical cell was constructed to hold the working electrode under study. Repeated imaging with little drift is possible while electrodes are reacted with lithium for periods of many days. Examples of measurements made by this device will be given for the case of lithium alloying with sputter-deposited Si–Sn thin films. The optical and AFM images obtained as a function of lithium content in the films are assembled into time-lapsed “movies” showing the evolution of the morphology of the sample along with the corresponding electrochemistry. These movies are available for download through the Electronic Physics Auxiliary Publication Service (EPAPS).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207