MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367547250 · doi:10.1149/07212.0001ecst

Safety Testing with Nonwoven Nanofiber Separators: Comparing Shutdown Separators to Thermally Stable Separators

2016· article· en· W2367547250 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Morin, Carl Hu, P. A. Khokhlov, J.L. Kaschmitter, Sung‐Jin Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsSpectra Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialNanofiberOverchargePolypropylenePenetration (warfare)PolyethylenePolyolefinLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pouch cells of LiFePo4 and graphite at 2700 mAh capacity were made from commercial electrodes with four different separators: 25 micron polypropylene (PP), 25 micron ceramic coated polyethylene (PE/C), 25 micron nanofiber nonwoven (Dreamweaver Silver – DWI/S), and 25 micron nanofiber nonwoven containing para-aramid fibers (Dreamweaver Gold – DWI/G). The cells had nearly identical electrical performance. The cells underwent hard short, overcharge, hot box and nail penetration tests. All cells passed hard short and overcharge tests. In hot box tests, the PE/C and PP cells experienced internal shorts when the cell temperature reached 145 C. The DWI/S and DWI/G cells showed a steady voltage for 1 hour, and continued to function after the test was completed. In the nail penetration test, the PP and PE/C cells experienced an immediate drop to zero voltage, and the temperature rose quickly to 115 C (PE/C) and 85 C (PP). The DWI/S and DWI/G cells rose to 60 C and 40C respectively, but exhibited only a ~100 mV drop in voltage and continued to function with the nail in the cell. Autopsies of the cells revealed significant shrinkage and cracking of the polyolefin separators, but primarily mechanical damage to the DWI separators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207