LiFePO4 High Electrochemical Performance at 60{degree sign}C with Purity Controlled by SQUID Magnetometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The local structure and magnetic properties of a series of carbon-coated LiFePO4 particles prepared under different conditions are analyzed with XRD, FTIR, and SQUID magnetometry for comparison. While nano-sized ferromagnetic particles (γ Fe2O3 clusters) are detected by magnetic measurements in samples grown from iron(II) oxalate, such ferromagnetic clusters do not exist in the optimised samples grown from FePO4 (H2O)2. FTIR analyses show that carbon does not penetrate significantly inside the LiFePO4 particles despite the fact that it has been very efficient in reduction of Fe3+ to prevent gamma-Fe2O3 clustering, thus pointing to a gas-phase reduction process. The impact of the carbon coating on the electrochemical properties is also reported. No iron dissolution was observed after 200 charge-discharge cycles at 60{degree sign}C for cells containing Li foil, Li4Ti5O12, or graphite as negative electrodes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".