MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514437433 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b02726

Methods and Protocols for Electrochemical Energy Storage Materials Research

2016· article· en· W2514437433 on OpenAlexafffund
Elahe Talaie, Patrick Bonnick, Xiaoqi Sun, Quanquan Pang, Xiao Liang, Linda F. Nazar

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWaterloo Institute for Nanotechnology, University of WaterlooBASFNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Characterization (materials science)Dielectric spectroscopyElectrochemical energy storageElectrochemistryMaterials scienceElectrochemical cellX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyEnergy storageElectrodeComputer scienceNanotechnologyFabricationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chemical engineeringChemistrySupercapacitorPhysical chemistryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an overview of the procedures and methods to prepare and evaluate materials for electrochemical cells in battery research in our laboratory, including cell fabrication, two- and three-electrode cell studies, and methodology for evaluating diffusion coefficients and impedance measurements. Informative characterization techniques employed to assess new materials for batteries are also described, including operando XRD, pair-distribution function analysis, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and operando X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Examples of insightful information that each technique has provided in the research areas of Li-S, Na-ion, and Mg batteries are presented along with excellent references for detailed descriptions of the theory, experimental procedures, and various designs, as well as methods for data processing and analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations175
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207