LiFePO4–graphene as a superior cathode material for rechargeable lithium batteries: impact of stacked graphene and unfolded graphene
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we describe the use of unfolded graphene as a three dimensional (3D) conducting network for LiFePO4 nanoparticle growth. Compared with stacked graphene, which has a wrinkled structure, the use of unfolded graphene enables better dispersion of LiFePO4 and restricts the LiFePO4 particle size at the nanoscale. More importantly, it allows each LiFePO4 particle to be attached to the conducting layer, which could greatly enhance the electronic conductivity, thereby realizing the full potential of the active materials. Based on its superior structure, after post-treatment for 12 hours, the LiFePO4–unfolded graphene nanocomposite achieved a discharge capacity of 166.2 mA h g−1 in the 1st cycle, which is 98% of the theoretical capacity (170 mA h g−1). The composite also displayed stable cycling behavior up to 100 cycles, whereas the LiFePO4–stacked graphene composite with a similar carbon content could deliver a discharge capacity of only 77 mA h g−1 in the 1st cycle. X-ray absorption near-edge spectroscopy (XANES) provided spectroscopic understanding of the crystallinity of LiFePO4 and chemical bonding between LiFePO4 and unfolded graphene.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it