A Review of Inactive Materials and Components of Flexible Lithium‐Ion Batteries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flexible Li‐ion batteries (LIBs) have a strong oncoming consumer market demand for use in wearable electronics, flexible electronics, and implantable medical devices. This market demand necessitates research on flexible LIBs to fulfill the energy requirements of these devices. One of the main areas of research of flexible LIBs is the active and inactive materials used in manufacturing these batteries. Active materials are those used in the battery electrodes to store lithium in their structure. The remaining materials in flexible LIBs, which do not directly contribute to energy storage, are inactive materials. Inactive materials and components—including electrode conductive materials, binders, separator, current collectors, electrolyte, and casing/packaging—make up almost 60% of the total weight of a LIB. Thus, they are important in the determination of energy and power density of flexible LIBs. This study reviews the inactive materials and components of flexible LIBs from two aspects. First, inactive materials and components used in flexible LIBs and their properties are compared. Then, the compatibility and stability of inactive materials and components are discussed. Overall, this article gives an extensive insight to researchers on inactive materials and components employed so far for flexible LIBs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it