The Electrochemical Reaction of Li with Amorphous Si-Sn Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
samples for were prepared by magnetron sputtering using a combinatorial materials science approach. The room-temperature resistivity and X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the samples were used to select materials having both an amorphous structure and good conductivity for further study. The reaction of lithium with amorphous was then studied by electrochemical methods and by in situ XRD. The electrode material apparently remains amorphous throughout all portions of the charge and discharge profile, in the range in No crystalline phases are formed, unlike the situation when lithium reacts with tin. Using the Debye scattering formalism, we show that the XRD patterns of the a- starting material and can be explained by the same local atomic arrangements as found in crystalline Si and Si or Sn, respectively. In fact, the in situ XRD patterns of a- for any x, can be well approximated by a linear combination of the patterns for and This suggests that predominantly only two local environments for Si and Sn are found at any value of x in However, based on differential capacity vs. potential results for Li/a- there is no evidence for two-phase regions during the charge and discharge profile. Thus, the two local environments must appear at random throughout the particles. We speculate that the charge-discharge hysteresis in the voltage-capacity profile of cells is caused by the energy dissipated during the changes in the local atomic environment around the host atoms. © 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".