Comparison of the rate capability of nanostructured amorphous and anatase TiO<sub>2</sub>for lithium insertion using anodic TiO<sub>2</sub>nanotube arrays
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanostructured amorphous and anatase TiO2 are both considered as high rate Li-insertion/extraction electrode materials. To clarify which phase is more desirable for lithium ion batteries with both high power and high density, we compare the electrochemical properties of anatase and amorphous TiO2 by using anodic TiO2 nanotube arrays (ATNTAs) as electrodes. With the same morphological features, the rate capacity of nanostructured amorphous TiO2 is higher than that of nanostructured anatase TiO2 due to the higher Li-diffusion coefficient of amorphous TiO2 as proved by the electrochemical impedance spectra of an amorphous and an anatase ATNTA electrode. The electrochemical impedance spectra also prove that the electronic conductivity of amorphous TiO2 is lower than that of anatase TiO2. These results are helpful in the structural and componential design of all TiO2 mesoporous structures as anode material in lithium ion batteries. Moreover, all the advantages of the amorphous ATNTA electrode including high rate capacity, desirable cycling performance and the simplicity of its fabrication process indicate that amorphous ATNTA is potentially useful as the anode for lithium ion batteries with both high power and high energy density.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it