Lithium Manganese Spinel Cathodes for Lithium‐Ion Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spinel LiMn 2 O 4 , whose electrochemical activity was first reported by Prof. John B. Goodenough's group at Oxford in 1983, is an important cathode material for lithium‐ion batteries that has attracted continuous academic and industrial interest. It is cheap and environmentally friendly, and has excellent rate performance with 3D Li + diffusion channels. However, it suffers from severe degradation, especially under extreme voltages and during high‐temperature operation. Here, the current understanding and future trends of the spinel cathode and its derivatives with cubic lattice symmetry (LiNi 0.5 Mn 1.5 O 4 that shows high‐voltage stability, and Li‐rich spinels that show reversible hybrid anion‐ and cation‐redox activities) are discussed. Special attention is given to the degradation mechanisms and further development of spinel cathodes, as well as concepts of utilizing the cubic spinel structure to stabilize high‐capacity layered cathodes and as robust framework for high‐rate electrodes. “Good spinel” surface phases like LiNi 0.5 Mn 1.5 O 4 are distinguished from “bad spinel” surface phases like Mn 3 O 4 .
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".