MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327001674 · doi:10.1021/nn404439r

Tailoring Porosity in Carbon Nanospheres for Lithium–Sulfur Battery Cathodes

2013· article· en· W2327001674 on OpenAlexaff
Guang He, Scott Evers, Xiao Liang, Marine Cuisinier, Arnd Garsuch, Linda F. Nazar

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityMaterials scienceSulfurCarbon fibersElectrolyteCathodeChemical engineeringMesoporous materialComposite numberComposite materialElectrodeChemistryMetallurgyCatalysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porous hollow carbon spheres with different tailored pore structures have been designed as conducting frameworks for lithium-sulfur battery cathode materials that exhibit stable cycling capacity. By deliberately creating shell porosity and utilizing the interior void volume of the carbon spheres, sufficient space for sulfur storage as well as electrolyte pathways is guaranteed. The effect of different approaches to develop shell porosity is examined and compared in this study. The most highly optimized sulfur-porous carbon nanosphere composite, created using pore-formers to tailor shell porosity, exhibits excellent cycling performance and rate capability. Sulfur is primarily confined in 4-5 nm mesopores in the carbon shell and inner lining of the shells, which is beneficial for enhancing charge transfer and accommodating volume expansion of sulfur during redox cycling. Little capacity degradation (∼0.1% /cycle) is observed over 100 cycles for the optimized material.

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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations475
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207