MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107607026 · doi:10.1039/c4cp05786d

Thermal relaxation of lithium dendrites

2015· article· en· W2107607026 on OpenAlexaff
Asghar Aryanfar, Daniel J. Brooks, A. J. Colussi, Boris V. Merinov, William A. Goddard, Michael R. Hoffmann

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsProcess Simulations Limited (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)Relaxation (psychology)Materials scienceThermalNanotechnologyChemical physicsThermodynamicsEngineering physicsChemistryPhysicsNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The average lengths λ̅ of lithium dendrites produced by charging symmetric Li(0) batteries at various temperatures are matched by Monte Carlo computations dealing both with Li(+) transport in the electrolyte and thermal relaxation of Li(0) electrodeposits. We found that experimental λ̅(T) variations cannot be solely accounted by the temperature dependence of Li(+) mobility in the solvent but require the involvement of competitive Li-atom transport from metastable dendrite tips to smoother domains over ΔE(++)(R) ∼ 20 kJ mol(-1) barriers. A transition state theory analysis of Li-atom diffusion in solids yields a negative entropy of activation for the relaxation process: ΔS(++)(R) ≈ -46 J mol(-1) K(-1) that is consistent with the transformation of amorphous into crystalline Li(0) electrodeposits. Significantly, our ΔE(++)(R) ∼ 20 kJ mol(-1) value compares favorably with the activation barriers recently derived from DFT calculations for self-diffusion on Li(0)(001) and (111) crystal surfaces. Our findings suggest a key role for the mobility of interfacial Li-atoms in determining the morphology of dendrites at temperatures above the onset of surface reconstruction: TSR ≈ 0.65 TMB (TMB = 453 K: the melting point of bulk Li(0)).

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations87
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207