Crystal structure of a new lithium iron vanadate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iron vanadates and phosphates have been widely explored [1-2] as possible electrode material for Li-ion batteries. In the goal of finding new materials, our approach was to consider existing materials and to investigate the flexibility of their network for possible substitutions. Among the different materials containing iron and vanadium, Cu3Fe4(XO4)6 (X = P, V) are isostructural to Fe7(PO4)6. Lafontaine et al. [3] discussed the structural relationships between β-Cu3Fe4(VO4)6 and several other vanadates, phosphates and molybdates of general formula AxBy(VO4)6. The interesting network flexibility was then demonstrated with the existence of four different crystallographic sites, which can be partially occupied depending on the x+y value : x+y = 7 for β-Cu3Fe4(VO4)6) and x+y = 8 for NaCuFe2(VO4)3. The LixFey(VO4)6 phase was then prepared considering the substitution of Li+ and Fe3+ for Cu2+ ions in β-Cu3Fe4(VO4)6 and the existence of an extra site to accommodate the charge compensation (7 ≤ x+y ≤ 8). As expected, a new lithium iron vanadate, isotructural to mineral Howardevansite was then obtained. Single crystal diffraction data were collected at room temperature on Enraf-Nonius CAD-4 diffractometer. Structure was refined with JANA-2006 program package. Mössbauer and magnetic measurements were also used to check the oxidation state of iron ions, to support the obtained crystal structure and to consider any possible structural/magnetic transitions. All the results will be presented and discussed in this presentation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".