MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157773986 · doi:10.1149/1.2816229

Triphenylamines as a Class of Redox Shuttle Molecules for the Overcharge Protection of Lithium-Ion Cells

2007· article· en· W2157773986 on OpenAlexaff
Lee Moshurchak, Claudia Buhrmester, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriphenylamineOverchargeBromineChemistryLithium (medication)MoleculePhotochemistryPyrotechnicsRedoxInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryBattery (electricity)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of molecules that have been proposed as shuttle molecules has been steadily growing as research in the area continues. However, the number of molecules that provide lengthy overcharge protection remains small. A class of molecules that provides better than average overcharge protection in lithium-ion coin cells is the triphenylamine class. With the charge spread throughout the three aromatic rings and the central nitrogen, these molecules are stable and have a tuneable oxidation potential, as shown when electron-withdrawing bromines are added to the rings. The oxidation potential of triphenylamine is raised by approximately per bromine added. Also, the addition of bromine can increase the electrochemical stability of triphenylamine, as seen by an increased number of overcharge cycles in coin cells containing tris(4-bromophenyl)amine instead of triphenylamine as the redox shuttle. This stability comes from the bromine preventing the formation of the dimer of triphenylamine, tetraphenylbenzidine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207