MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102237556 · doi:10.1149/1.1483865

The Reactions of Li[sub 0.5]CoO[sub 2] with Nonaqueous Solvents at Elevated Temperatures

2002· article· en· W2102237556 on OpenAlexaff
Dean D. MacNeil, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDifferential scanning calorimetryPropylene carbonateEthylene carbonateSolventElectrochemistryCalorimetryCombustionReaction rateReaction mechanismOxygenInorganic chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Physical chemistryThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryElectrodeCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), accelerating rate calorimetry (ARC), and X-ray diffraction experiments on the reaction of in various solvents have been performed. In the presence of sufficient solvent the reaction proceeds in a clear stepwise manner through solid phases as a function of temperature as Accompanying these changes are solvent combustion reactions due to the evolved oxygen that realease large amounts of heat. If there is only a small amount of solvent present relative to the amount of the last step of the reaction does not occur, at least at temperatures below 450°C. A kinetic description for the stepwise reaction of in ethylene carbonate (EC)/propylene carbonate (PC) was developed using successive Avrami-Erofeev reaction models. The kinetic triplets obtained from DSC experiments were then used to accurately predict a number of ARC experiments of in EC/PC, giving confidence in the determined kinetic triplet. © 2002 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations175
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207