MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976228937 · doi:10.1149/2.1181913jes

Surface Area of Lithium-Metal Electrodes Measured by Argon Adsorption

2019· article· en· W2976228937 on OpenAlexaff
Rochelle Weber, Ju‐Hsiang Cheng, A. J. Louli, Matt Coon, Sunny Hy, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsMagna International (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)ElectrodeElectrolyteAnodeStripping (fiber)Capacity lossMaterials scienceLithium metalSpecific surface areaArgonAdsorptionMetalPorosityChemical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryComposite materialMetallurgyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rechargeable cells that rely on the stripping and plating of lithium during discharge and charge, respectively, must maintain smooth and flat lithium morphology to attain long cycle life. Higher surface area lithium metal, associated with dendrites or porous deposits, will increase the rate of reaction with liquid electrolyte, accelerate capacity loss, and decrease safety. Here we use argon BET to measure the specific surface area of lithium-metal electrodes as a function of cycle number. For "anode-free" cells with 1M LiPF 6 in FEC:DEC electrolyte, the specific surface area of the lithium electrode increases by more than three times after 20 charge-discharge cycles. This measurement provides an assessment of degradation that can be linked to capacity loss and safety, which averages over the entire electrode and is therefore an excellent quantitative complement to SEM images used to look at lithium-morphology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207