MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735839972 · doi:10.1149/2.1301709jes

Evaluation of Electrospun Fibrous Mats Targeted for Use as Flow Battery Electrodes

2017· article· en· W2735839972 on OpenAlexaff
Selina Liu, Matthew D. R. Kok, Yongwook Kim, John L. Barton, Fikile R. Brushett, Jeff T. Gostick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced battery technologies research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrospinningMaterials scienceElectrodePorositySpecific surface areaElectrochemistryNanotechnologyNanofiberBattery (electricity)CarbonizationConductivityComposite materialPolymerChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrospinning was used to create custom-made fibrous electrode materials for redox flow batteries with targeted structural properties. The aim was to increase the available surface area for electrochemical reaction without diminishing the transport properties of the electrode. Electrospinning conditions were identified that could produce fibers several times larger than those typically yielded by the technique, yet much smaller than in commercially available electrodes. These materials were subsequently carbonized using widely reported protocols. The resultant materials were subjected to a range of characterization tests to confirm that the feasibility of the target material, including surface area, pore and fiber sizes, porosity, conductivity, and permeability. The most promising material to emerge from this selection processes was then tested for electrochemical performance in a flow cell. The produced material performed markedly better than a commercially available material. Further optimizations such as improved consistency in the production and some surface activation treatments could provide significant advancements.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations77
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvanced battery technologies researchFrench-language works237,207