MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027310947 · doi:10.1149/1945-7111/ab94ef

In Situ XRD Studies During Synthesis of Single-Crystal LiNiO<sub>2</sub>, LiNi<sub>0.975</sub>Mg<sub>0.025</sub>O<sub>2</sub>, and LiNi<sub>0.95</sub>Al<sub>0.05</sub>O<sub>2</sub> Cathode Materials

2020· article· en· W3027310947 on OpenAlexaff
Rochelle Weber, Hongyang Li, Weifeng Chen, Chang‐Yong Kim, Kevin P. Plucknett, J. R. Dahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)Magna International (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)Materials scienceSingle crystalNickelCobaltCrystal structureDopingChemical engineeringCrystallographyChemistryMetallurgyOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-nickel, cobalt-free, single-crystal positive electrode materials could provide the ultimate intersection of high-specific capacity, low cost, and long-lifetime in lithium-ion batteries. In this work, the synthesis of LiNiO2, LiNi0.975Mg0.025O2, and LiNi0.95Al0.05O2 is studied by dynamic XRD during heating, in order to guide improvements in synthesis procedures. A comparison of Li2CO3 and LiOH·H2O lithium sources shows that either can be used to prepare these materials, but Li2CO3 requires a higher temperature. Mg doping is shown to be beneficial in lowering the temperature required to get fully lithiated, crystalline material. Additional experiments show that synthesis with a 480 °C preheat step, or synthesis directly from individual metal hydroxides (without a precursor), could be used as potentially viable alternative synthesis methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207