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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
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