MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092503379 · doi:10.1149/1.1359194

Electrochemistry of InSb as a Li Insertion Host: Problems and Prospects

2001· article· en· W2092503379 on OpenAlexafffund
K. C. Hewitt, Luc Beaulieu, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor materials and interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsElectrochemistryIntercalation (chemistry)Reactivity (psychology)CarbonateEthylene carbonateIndiumDiffractionIn situChemistryDiethyl carbonateMaterials scienceCrystallographyElectrodeInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ballmilling of In and Sb has been used to produce InSb for use in electrochemical and in situ X-ray diffraction studies (XRD) of ethylene carbonate:diethyl carbonate/InSb cells. The cell capacity decays rapidly when cycled between 0 and 1.3 V, while the capacity reduction is less pronounced when cycling is restricted to the 0.65-1.4 V range. In situ XRD studies reveal that and In are formed during the first plateau (above 0.65 V), according to the reaction The indium product subsequently reacts with Li forming the phases InLi and in sequence. When cells are cycled above 0.6 V ( i.e. , in the absence of formation) capacity retention improves significantly, remaining relatively constant near 250 mAh/g. Detailed in situ XRD studies of these cells suggest that 0.27 Li atoms per InSb may be intercalated during a sharp drop in the cell potential, according to the reaction This intercalation accounts for only a small (about 30 mAh/g) fraction of the overall capacity of 680 mAh/g. Consequently, it appears that the reactivity of In and Sb with Li, not the structure type, determines the reaction path. Therefore, InSb is not an attractive intercalation host for Li, in contrast to the claims made in the literature. © 2001 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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

Citations136
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicSemiconductor materials and interfacesFrench-language works237,207