Metal and Metal Oxide Electrocatalysts for Redox Flow Batteries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are one of the promising technologies for large‐scale energy storage applications. For practical implementation of RFBs, it is of great interest to improve their efficiency and reduce their cost. One of the key components of RFBs that can greatly influence the efficiency and final cost is the electrode. The chemical and structural nature of electrodes can modify the kinetics of redox reactions and the accessibility of the electroactive species to available active sites. The ideal electrocatalyst for RFBs must have good activity for the desirable redox reaction, provide a high surface area, and exhibit sufficient conductivity and durability over repeated use. One strategy is to coat the electrode with metal and metal oxide electrocatalysts. Metal electrocatalysts have the advantage of high conductivity, while metal oxide catalysts are usually less expensive and so more economically attractive. In order to gain a better understanding of the performance of the electrocatalysts in RFBs, a comprehensive review of the progress in the development of metal and metal oxide electrocatalysts for RFBs is provided and a critical comparison of the latest developments is presented. Finally, practical recommendations for advancement of electrocatalysts and effective transfer of knowledge in this field are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it