MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272182740 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v15i4.35

Nanoporous Carbon Sponge as the Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries

2012· article· en· W2272182740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lianna Dang, Qina Sa, Zhangfeng Zheng, Yan Wang, Shenqiang Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnodeNanoporousMaterials scienceLithium (medication)Battery (electricity)GraphitePower densityElectrochemistryCarbon fibersNanotechnologyEnergy storageCurrent densityChemical engineeringComposite materialElectrodeChemistryPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium ion battery is the choice for future generations of portable electronics and hybrid and electric vehicles due to its high energy density, power density and long cycle life compared to other battery technologies. However, current graphite anode limits its application due to the low energy density derived from layered graphitic structure and low rate capability due to the slow diffusion of Li ion in graphite. In this study, a simple and versatile approach was developed to generate nanoporous carbon sponge using the combination of hard templating and etching reaction. The electrochemical properties have been tested with these novel anode materials, which showed remarkable electrochemical performance and cycling stability. Therefore, the nanoporous carbon sponge is promising to be used as the anode materials for next generation lithium ion batteries requiring high energy density and power 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.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical SystemsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207