MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257567926 · doi:10.1149/2.0181514jes

Differential Thermal Analysis of Li-Ion Cells as an Effective Probe of Liquid Electrolyte Evolution during Aging

2015· article· en· W2257567926 on OpenAlexafffund
R. P. Day, Jianye Xia, R. Petibon, J. Rucska, H. Wang, A. T. B. Wright, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrolyteElectrochemical cellElectrochemistryDifferential thermal analysisLithium (medication)GraphiteInertMelting pointIonThermalMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryElectrodeChromatographyThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique has been developed to allow for in-situ observation of the state of the liquid electrolyte present in an electrochemical device through exploiting the nature of solid-liquid phase transitions. An apparatus was developed to perform differential thermal analysis (DTA) on complete NMC/graphite lithium-ion pouch cells. The DTA apparatus monitored the temperature of a sample cell alongside that of a thermally inert reference cell during a controlled temperature scan through the melting point of the electrolyte in the sample cell, producing a thermal signature of the sample electrolyte without damage to the cell performance. This signature holds information pertaining to the composition and amount of liquid electrolyte present in the electrochemical device, allowing for detailed study of electrolyte evolution at various points of life and indications of the state-of-health of the device.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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