A Comparison of NMC/Graphite Pouch Cells and Commercially Available LiCoO<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Pouch Cells Tested to High Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Li[Ni 0.4 Mn 0.4 Co 0.2 ]O 2 (NMC442)/graphite pouch cells containing the additives prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone, 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-2,2-dioxide and tris-(trimethyl-silyl) phosphite were compared to a variety of commercially available LiCoO 2 (LCO)/graphite cells using charge-hold-discharge cycling experiments up to potentials between 4.2 and 4.4 V. Simultaneous electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements were made during cycling at 40°C. The effects of a 24 hour hold at the top of charge on the impedance and capacity retention were investigated for NMC and LCO cells, and to the subsequent changes to the positive and negative electrodes of some of the LCO cells. Only the LCO cells cycled to 4.2 V remained competitive against the NMC cells cycled to 4.4 V. LCO cells tested with this protocol to upper cutoff potentials of 4.35 V and 4.4 V exhibited severe capacity fade and positive electrode damage.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".