MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784970327 · doi:10.1002/smll.201702737

Silicon‐Based Anodes for Lithium‐Ion Batteries: From Fundamentals to Practical Applications

2018· review· en· W2784970327 on OpenAlexafffund
Kun Feng, Matthew Li, Wenwen Liu, Ali Ghorbani Kashkooli, Xingcheng Xiao, Mei Cai, Zhongwei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSiliconAnodeMaterials scienceLithium (medication)NanotechnologyCommercializationElectrolyteEngineering physicsElectrodeMetallurgyChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon has been intensively studied as an anode material for lithium-ion batteries (LIB) because of its exceptionally high specific capacity. However, silicon-based anode materials usually suffer from large volume change during the charge and discharge process, leading to subsequent pulverization of silicon, loss of electric contact, and continuous side reactions. These transformations cause poor cycle life and hinder the wide commercialization of silicon for LIBs. The lithiation and delithiation behaviors, and the interphase reaction mechanisms, are progressively studied and understood. Various nanostructured silicon anodes are reported to exhibit both superior specific capacity and cycle life compared to commercial carbon-based anodes. However, some practical issues with nanostructured silicon cannot be ignored, and must be addressed if it is to be widely used in commercial LIBs. This Review outlines major impactful work on silicon-based anodes, and the most recent research directions in this field, specifically, the engineering of silicon architectures, the construction of silicon-based composites, and other performance-enhancement studies including electrolytes and binders. The burgeoning research efforts in the development of practical silicon electrodes, and full-cell silicon-based LIBs are specially stressed, which are key to the successful commercialization of silicon anodes, and large-scale deployment of next-generation high energy density 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.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,006
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207