Structure and insertion properties of disordered and ordered LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 spinels prepared by wet chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the synthesis, characterization, and electrode behavior of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 spinels prepared by the wet-chemical method via citrate precursors. The phase evolution was studied as a function of nickel substitution and upon intercalation and deintercalation of Li ions. Characterization methods include X-ray diffraction, SEM, Raman, Fourier transform infrared, superconducting quantum interference device, and electron spin resonance. The crystal chemistry of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 appears to be strongly dependent on the growth conditions. Both normal-like cubic spinel [Fd3m space group (SG)] and ordered spinel (P4 1 32 SG) structures have been formed using different synthesis routes. Raman scattering and infrared features indicate that the vibrational mode frequencies and relative intensities of the bands are sensitive to the covalency of the (Ni, Mn)-O bonds. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs show that the particle size of the LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 powders ranges in the submicronic domain with a narrow grain-size distribution. The substitution of the 3d8 metal for Mn in LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 oxides is beneficial for its charge–discharge cycling performance. For a cut-off voltage of 3.5–4.9 V, the electrochemical capacity of the Li//LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cell is ca. 133 mAh/g during the first discharge. Differences and similarities between LiMn2O4 and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 oxides are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".