MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883026039 · doi:10.1002/adma.201801190

Li<sub>2</sub>S‐ or S‐Based Lithium‐Ion Batteries

2018· review· en· W2883026039 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Li, Zhongwei Chen, Tianpin Wu, Jun Lü

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryWaterloo Institute for Nanotechnology, University of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDivision of Materials ResearchOffice of ScienceUniversity of ChicagoU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAnodeBattery (electricity)CommercializationCathodeMaterials scienceLithium (medication)Lithium metalKey (lock)NanotechnologyRealization (probability)Potassium-ion batteryLithium-ion batteryEngineering physicsComputer scienceElectrical engineeringBusinessElectrodeEngineeringPhysicsPhysical chemistryChemistryThermodynamicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While members of the Li–S battery research community are becoming more conscious of the practical testing parameters, the widespread commercialization of S‐based batteries is still far from realization. Particularly, the metallic Li used as the anode poses potential safety and cycle stability concerns. Alternatively, other S‐battery configurations without a Li anode, i.e., lithium‐ion, Li 2 S, or S batteries, do not suffer from the same safety concerns and can possibly serve as better methods to bring room‐temperature S‐based battery technologies to industry. However, whether Li 2 S or S will be used as the initiating cathode material remains unclear as each offers their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Here, both S and Li 2 S as cathodes are briefly discussed and the key benefits of Li 2 S are highlighted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.269 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations78
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207