MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922865316 · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2019.00028

Roles of Ti in Electrode Materials for Sodium-Ion Batteries

2019· article· en· W2922865316 on OpenAlex

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

VenueFrontiers in Energy Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnodeElectrochemistryCathodeMaterials scienceElectrodeSodiumIonRedoxLithium (medication)NanotechnologyChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryChemistryMetallurgyPhysical chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sodium-ion batteries offer a promising alternative to lithium-ion batteries due to the low cost, environmental friendliness, high abundance of sodium and established electrochemical process. However, problems, such as low capacity, low storage voltage and capacity fade of electrode materials for sodium-ion batteries must be resolved. Many Ti-containing compounds were reported as cathode and anode materials, but very few studies focused on the role of Ti in electrodes used in sodium-ion batteries. This paper systemically reviews the roles of Ti in electrodes of sodium ion batteries. The Ti4+/Ti3+ redox couple is a good choice for anodes due to its low potential and it exhibits different storage voltages in different structures. Although Ti4+ does not participate in charge transfer in cathodes, it can indirectly enhance the capacity, cycling life and rate performance via structure change, cation order-disorder transition and its interaction with the crystal lattice structure. This review will provide a new insight in designing and understanding novel high-performance electrodes.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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