MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792705716 · doi:10.1002/anie.201801737

An Artificial Lithium Protective Layer that Enables the Use of Acetonitrile‐Based Electrolytes in Lithium Metal Batteries

2018· article· en· W2792705716 on OpenAlexafffund
Ngoc Duc Trinh, David Lepage, David Aymé‐Perrot, Antonella Badia, Mickaël Dollé, Dominic Rochefort

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLithium metalLithium (medication)ElectrolyteAcetonitrileLayer (electronics)Materials scienceMetalInorganic chemistryChemistryNanotechnologyOrganic chemistryElectrodeMedicineMetallurgyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The resurgence of the lithium metal battery requires innovations in technology, including the use of non‐conventional liquid electrolytes. The inherent electrochemical potential of lithium metal (−3.04 V vs. SHE) inevitably limits its use in many solvents, such as acetonitrile, which could provide electrolytes with increased conductivity. The aim of this work is to produce an artificial passivation layer at the lithium metal/electrolyte interface that is electrochemically stable in acetonitrile‐based electrolytes. To produce such a stable interface, the lithium metal was immersed in fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) to generate a passivation layer via the spontaneous decomposition of the solvent. With this passivation layer, the chemical stability of lithium metal is shown for the first time in 1 m LiPF6 in acetonitrile.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations128
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207