High Capacity, Dendrite‐Free Growth, and Minimum Volume Change Na Metal Anode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Na metal anode attracts increasing attention as a promising candidate for Na metal batteries (NMBs) due to the high specific capacity and low potential. However, similar to issues faced with the use of Li metal anode, crucial problems for metallic Na anode remain, including serious moss‐like and dendritic Na growth, unstable solid electrolyte interphase formation, and large infinite volume changes. Here, the rational design of carbon paper (CP) with N‐doped carbon nanotubes (NCNTs) as a 3D host to obtain Na@CP‐NCNTs composites electrodes for NMBs is demonstrated. In this design, 3D carbon paper plays a role as a skeleton for Na metal anode while vertical N‐doped carbon nanotubes can effectively decrease the contact angle between CP and liquid metal Na, which is termed as being “Na‐philic.” In addition, the cross‐conductive network characteristic of CP and NCNTs can decrease the effective local current density, resulting in uniform Na nucleation. Therefore, the as‐prepared Na@CP‐NCNT exhibits stable electrochemical plating/stripping performance in symmetrical cells even when using a high capacity of 3 mAh cm−2 at high current density. Furthermore, the 3D skeleton structure is observed to be intact following electrochemical cycling with minimum volume change and is dendrite‐free in nature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".