MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332658667 · doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00326

New Lithium Metal Polymer Solid State Battery for an Ultrahigh Energy: Nano C-LiFePO<sub>4</sub> versus Nano Li<sub>1.2</sub>V<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub>

2015· article· en· W2332658667 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Hovington, Marin Lagacé, Abdelbast Guerfi, Patrick Bouchard, A. Mauger, C. Julien, Michel Armand, Karim Zaghib

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceVanadiumNano-Lithium (medication)ElectrolyteDissolutionElectrochemistryBattery (electricity)Lithium iron phosphateElectrodeLithium batteryChemical engineeringMetalPolymerNanoparticleLithium vanadium phosphate batteryNanotechnologyChemistryPhysical chemistryMetallurgyIonComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel lithium metal polymer solid state batteries with nano C-LiFePO4 and nano Li1.2V3O8 counter-electrodes (average particle size 200 nm) were studied for the first time by in situ SEM and impedance during cycling. The kinetics of Li-motion during cycling is analyzed self-consistently together with the electrochemical properties. We show that the cycling life of the nano Li1.2V3O8 is limited by the dissolution of the vanadium in the electrolyte, which explains the choice of nano C-LiFePO4 (1300 cycles at 100% DOD): with this olivine, no dissolution is observed. In combination with lithium metal, at high loading and with a stable SEI an ultrahigh energy density battery was thus newly developed in our laboratory.

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 score0.004

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations185
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207