Recent Progress in Two‐Dimensional Layered Double Hydroxides and Their Derivatives for Supercapacitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-performance supercapacitors have attracted great attention due to their high power, fast charging/discharging, long lifetime, and high safety. However, the generally low energy density and overall device performance of supercapacitors limit their applications. In recent years, the design of rational electrode materials has proven to be an effective pathway to improve the capacitive performances of supercapacitors. Layered double hydroxides (LDHs), have shown great potential in new-generation supercapacitors, due to their unique two-dimensional layered structures with a high surface area and tunable composition of the host layers and intercalation species. Herein, recent progress in LDH-based, LDH-derived, and composite-type electrode materials targeted for applications in supercapacitors, by tuning the chemical/metal composition, growth morphology, architectures, and device integration, is reviewed. The complicated relationships between the composition, morphology, structure, and capacitive performance are presented. A brief projection is given for the challenges and perspectives of LDHs for energy research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".