Is Li<sub>4</sub>Ti<sub>5</sub>O<sub>12</sub>a solid-electrolyte-interphase-free electrode material in Li-ion batteries? Reactivity between the Li<sub>4</sub>Ti<sub>5</sub>O<sub>12</sub>electrode and electrolyte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does the Li4Ti5O12 electrode need a carbon additive in lithium-ion batteries? We answered this question in our previous work by showing that the partially reduced Ti4+ on the surface of Li4Ti5O12 could provide enough electronic conductivity to initiate the electrochemical process. In this work, we discuss the generally accepted fact that a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) is hardly formed on the surface of the Li4Ti5O12 electrode owing to its high redox potential by using the carbon-free Li4Ti5O12 electrode to exclude the influences of carbon. In contrast to the previous argument, Li4Ti5O12 was found to have certain reactivity towards electrolytes at room and high temperature (60 °C). Moreover, in the presence of carbon in the electrode (i.e. the conventional electrode formulation), the reactivity of the electrode towards an electrolyte was significantly increased at high temperatures. These results were discussed based on surface analyses and electrode morphology observation before and after cycling, and correlated with the electrochemical performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".