Effects of Graphite Heat-Treatment Temperature on Single-Crystal Li[Ni<sub>5</sub>Mn<sub>3</sub>Co<sub>2</sub>]O<sub>2</sub>/Graphite Pouch Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the effect of the heat-treatment temperature of synthetic (artificial) graphite on the electrochemical performance of LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 /graphite pouch cells was explored and compared with cells utilizing commercial-grade artificial and natural graphite materials. Two optimized electrolyte additive blends, 2% VC + 1% DTD and 1% LiPO 2 F 2 , were used in the cells tested. Physical properties of the different graphite electrodes, such as morphology, pore-size, crystallinity and thermal stability were investigated. Then, cells with each graphite material were tested with a variety of electrochemical techniques: ultra-high precision coulometry, long-term cycling, high-rate cycling, isothermal microcalorimetry, operando pressure tests and open circuit storage tests. Marginal benefits were found in electrochemical tests for cells with graphite materials that had been heat-treated to lower temperatures. However, in all tests, cells with synthetic graphite had superior performance compared to natural graphite.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".