Basic Research Needs Workshop on Synthesis Science for Energy Relevant Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The technology that lies at our fingertips becomes more powerful each day. Smartphones connect us instantly to family, friends, and co-workers around the globe; give us access to a limitless stream of information; control the heating in our homes; and serve as our cameras, calculators, flashlights, music players, boarding passes and, on occasion, our phones. Cars are ever more fuel-efficient, safer, semi-autonomous, and have more computing power than the systems that guided humankind to the moon. LED lighting and solar panels are becoming commonplace, replacing less efficient technologies and expanding the energy options available worldwide. Novel polymers and nanoparticles are playing a crucial role in enhanced oil recovery. None of these advances would have been possible without the discovery and development of, and ability to create, new materials and chemical processes. Now imagine what our world would be like if we could accelerate those discoveries a thousandfold. What if the only limit to synthesizing new forms of matter were the imagination? We could build complex assemblies of atoms and molecules with architectures and capabilities far exceeding those of materials found in nature—for example, develop catalysts that turn garbage into fuels, design solar cells to power our homes directly from sunlight, make batteries with the energy density of gasoline, and create one- and two-dimensional solids that transport charge hundreds of times faster than silicon or allow us to build quantum bits based on the spins of electrons or photons to realize the promise of “beyond Moore’s law” computing. Advances in synthesis science are required to bring about this future—we not only must know how to design new molecules and materials with desired functions and properties through theory and computational techniques; we also must be able to make the materials we envision. New approaches to discovering as yet unimagined matter require a sea change in the way we think about the science of synthesis. Chemical and materials sciences have traditionally focused on understanding structure–function relationships with the goal of predicting where the atoms should be placed to achieve a targeted property or process. Much less effort has been directed toward a predictive science of synthesis—understanding how to get the atoms where they need to go to achieve the desired structure. This report, which is the result of the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Basic Research Needs for Synthesis Science for Energy Technologies, lays out the scientific challenges and opportunities in synthesis science. The workshop was attended by more than 100 leading national and international scientific experts. Its five topical and two crosscutting panels identified four priority research directions (PRDs) for realizing the vision of predictive, science-directed synthesis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.066 |
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".