Effects of Stacking Fault Defects on the X-ray Diffraction Patterns of T2, O2, and O6 Structure Li<sub>2/3</sub>[Co<i><sub>x</sub></i>Ni<sub>1/3</sub><sub>-</sub><i><sub>x</sub></i>Mn<sub>2/3</sub>]O<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the preparation of Li 2/3 [Co x Ni 1/3 - x Mn 2/3 ]O 2 from Na 2/3 [Co x Ni 1/3 - x Mn 2/3 ]O 2 by low-temperature ion exchange, the MO 2 sheets slide so the alkali coordination can change from prismatic in the Na compound to octahedral or tetrahedral in the Li compound. All Li-containing samples show stacking faults, some with very high densities of faults, based on broad mixed index peaks in their diffraction patterns. Here, we calculate simulated diffraction patterns using the DIFFaX program developed by Treacy et al. We have considered intergrowths of the T2 and O2 structures and stacking faults in both O2 and O6 structures and have compared the results with experimental X-ray diffraction patterns of Li 2/3 [Co x Ni 1/3 - x Mn 2/3 ]O 2 ( x = 0, 1 / 24, and 1 / 12 ). The stacking fault models are consistent with the experimental data. Furthermore, we suggest that Li 2/3 [Co x Ni 1/3 - x Mn 2/3 ]O 2 ( x = 1 / 12 ) is actually a stacking faulted O6 structure, not a stacking faulted O2 structure as we claimed previously.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".