Soft-Chemistry of Garnet-Type Li<sub>5+<i>x</i></sub>Ba<sub><i>x</i></sub>La<sub>3–<i>x</i></sub>Nb<sub>2</sub>O<sub>12</sub> (<i>x</i> = 0, 0.5, 1): Reversible H<sup>+</sup> ↔ Li<sup>+</sup> Ion-Exchange Reaction and Their X-ray, <sup>7</sup>Li MAS NMR, IR, and AC Impedance Spectroscopy Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Garnet-type Li 5+ x Ba x La 3– x Nb 2 O 12 ( x = 0, 0.5, 1) was prepared using the ceramic method. The H + /Li + exchange was found to be most successful for x = 0, with ∼89% exchange, while x = 0.5 showed ∼46% exchange, and x = 1 showed ∼20% exchange in water at room temperature. For Li 5 La 3 Nb 2 O 12, where more of the Li ions occupy tetrahedral sites (ca. 80%), the H + /Li + exchange occurs readily. The population of octahedral-site Li ions increases as the amount of Li in Li 5+ x Ba x La 3– x Nb 2 O 12 increases and the ion-exchange proceeds to a lesser extent in water at room temperature. The Li + /H + ion-exchange of the proton-based garnet was found to be reversible, using 5 M LiNO 3 . The electrical conductivity of as-prepared Li 5+ x Ba x La 3– x Nb 2 O 12, the proton-exchanged product, and reverse-ion-exchanged “Li 5 La 3 Nb 2 O 12 ” were measured using AC impedance spectroscopy. The Li-ion conductivities of the reverse-ion-exchanged and as-prepared Li 5 La 3 Nb 2 O 12 were found to exhibit comparable values and are consistent with literature reports. The proton-exchanged sample showed a moderate electrical conductivity of <10 –6 S cm –1 at 125–250 °C, which may be attributed to the poor density of samples.
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) | 0.002 | 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".