MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089120638 · doi:10.1002/adfm.200701526

Thermo‐electrochemical Activation of an In–Cu Intermetallic Electrode for the Anode in Lithium Secondary Batteries

2008· article· en· W2089120638 on OpenAlexaff
Yoon Seok Jung, Kyu T. Lee, Jun Hyun Kim, Ji Y. Kwon, Seung M. Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Functional Materials · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIntermetallicAnodeAlloyLithium (medication)ElectrochemistryPhase (matter)MetalLithium metalActivation energyChemical engineeringElectrodeMetallurgyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lithium ion batteries (LIBs) have been emerging as a major power source for portable electronic devices and hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) with their superior performance to other competitors. The performance aspects of energy density and rate capability of LIBs should, however, be further improved for their new applications. Towards this end, many Li‐alloy materials, metal oxides, and phosphides have been tested, some of which have, however, been discarded because of poor activity at ambient temperature. Here, it is shown that the InCu binary intermetallic compound (Cu 7 In 3 ), which shows no activity at room temperature as a result of activation energy required for InCu bond cleavage, can be made active by discharge–charge cycling at elevated temperatures. Upon lithiation at elevated temperatures (55–120 °C), the Cu 7 In 3 phase is converted into nanograins of metallic Cu and a lithiated In phase (Li 13 In 3 ). The underlying activation mechanism is the formation of new In‐rich phase (CuIn). The de‐lithiation temperature turns out to be the most important variable that controlling the nature of the In‐rich compounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Functional MaterialsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207