MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044838379 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v22i3.a01

Recovery and Reuse of Spent LiFePO4 Batteries

2019· article· en· W3044838379 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKey Technology Research and Development Program of ShandongShandong Academy of SciencesNatural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
KeywordsReuseComputer scienceEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have been widely used in portable electronic devices, such as mobile phones, laptops and other small-sized electrical equipment, and are increasingly demand for large-scale applications Olivine type lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO 4 , LFP) is one of excellent cathode materials for application in large electric vehicles or energy storage facilities with its outstanding safety, good cycling performance, non-toxicity and structural stability The increasing consumption of LIBs in electronic equipment and electric vehicles, leading to boost growth of spent LiFePO 4 batteries Although spent LIBs are typical hazardous solid wastes, rich metal resources in spend batteries can also be reused rationally

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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