MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908386191 · doi:10.1149/ma2018-02/4/184

Characterization of Lithium in Batteries with EDS and EELS

2018· article· en· W2908386191 on OpenAlex
Raynald Gauvin, Nicolas Brodusch, Frédéric Voisard, George P. Demopoulos, Michel L. Trudeau, Karim Zaghib

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Lithium (medication)SpectroscopyScanning transmission electron microscopyElectron energy loss spectroscopyMaterials scienceResolution (logic)Field electron emissionDetectorBattery (electricity)Emission spectrumTransmission electron microscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectronOpticsNanotechnologyChemistryPhysicsSpectral lineComputer scienceNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will present start of the art characterization of Lithium in battery materials using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) at 30 keV with the state of the art field emission scanning transmission electron microscope (FE-STEM) Hitachi SU-9000EA. This microscope has a resolution of 0,22 nm in bright field imaging at 30 keV. It has the extreme EDS detector from Oxford that allows the detection of the Ka line of Lithium. It has a EELS system with 0.5 eV resolution that allows to map the chemical state of Li in various materials. Examples of applications of these techniques will be presented as well as the challenges and limitations for Lithium characterization.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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