MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016729679 · doi:10.3390/ma13081884

Brief History of Early Lithium-Battery Development

2020· review· en· W3016729679 on OpenAlexaff
M. V. Reddy, A. Mauger, C. Julien, Andrea Paolella, Karim Zaghib

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)Battery (electricity)ElectrolyteElectrochemistryLithium batteryMaterials scienceElectrodeIonPower (physics)ChemistryMedicinePhysicsIonic bondingThermodynamicsOrganic chemistryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium batteries are electrochemical devices that are widely used as power sources. This history of their development focuses on the original development of lithium-ion batteries. In particular, we highlight the contributions of Professor Michel Armand related to the electrodes and electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations460
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207