MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045237655 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.06.072

High-purity few-layer graphene from plasma pyrolysis of methane as conductive additive for LiFePO4 lithium ion battery

2020· article· en· W3045237655 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Wang, Fangfang Wang, Ruoyu Hong, Xuesong Lv, Ying Zheng, Huaiyin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersFujian Provincial Department of Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrapheneMaterials scienceGraphene foamLithium (medication)Chemical engineeringLithium-ion batteryGraphene oxide paperCathodeBattery (electricity)Nanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphene is one of the most attractive materials because of its outstanding properties. Here we report a straightforward and environmentally friendly process, in which the few-layer graphene is continuously prepared in gas phase by one-step pyrolysis of methane by alternative-current arc plasma under substrate free and atmospheric conditions. The graphene is generated in high purity with the yield of more than 2 g/h. No further operations such as centrifugation, purification, sonication, and drying are needed. The synthesized graphene powder mainly consists of 1–3 layered flakes. The electrochemical performance of the graphene as the cathode conductive filler for LiFePO4 lithium ion batteries is investigated. The most effective electron transporting network in lithium ion batteries is obtained under 2% of graphene, together with 1% of carbon black. Moreover, the addition of graphene increases the specific capacity of the cathode and shows a good rate performance.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207