Structure, Ionic Conductivity, and Dielectric Properties of Li-Rich Garnet-type Li<sub>5+2<i>x</i></sub>La<sub>3</sub>Ta<sub>2–<i>x</i></sub>Sm<sub><i>x</i></sub>O<sub>12</sub> (0 ≤ <i>x</i> ≤ 0.55) and Their Chemical Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium garnet oxides are considered as very promising solid electrolyte candidates for all-solid-state lithium ion batteries (SSLiBs). In this work, we present a cubic garnet-type Li 5+2 x La 3 Ta 2– x Sm x O 12 (0 ≤ x ≤ 0.55) system as a potential electrolyte for SSLiBs. Powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were employed to investigate the structural stability of Li 5+2 x La 3 Ta 2– x Sm x O 12 . The results from PXRD and SEM suggested structural and morphological transformation as a function of dopant concentration. In addition to Li-ion transport in Li 5+2 x La 3 Ta 2– x Sm x O 12, the dielectric properties were also investigated in the light of electron energy loss functions, which showed some surface energy loss and negligible volume energy loss for the studied garnets. Surface and volume energy loss functions of a mixed conducting LiCoO 2 was studied for comparison. The long-term chemical stability of one of members, Li 5.3 La 3 Ta 1.85 Sm 0.15 O 12, was performed on aged sample using PXRD, SEM, and thermogravimetric 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".