MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082787878 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101505

Breaking Free from Cobalt Reliance in Lithium-Ion Batteries

2020· review· en· W3082787878 on OpenAlexafffund
Storm Gourley, Tyler Or, Zhongwei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCobaltLithium (medication)CathodeBattery (electricity)ScarcityEnergy storageWork (physics)Natural resource economicsNanotechnologyMaterials scienceEngineering physicsEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringEconomicsMetallurgyMechanical engineeringPhysicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exponential growth in demand for electric vehicles (EVs) necessitates increasing supplies of low-cost and high-performance lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Naturally, the ramp-up in LIB production raises concerns over raw material availability, where constraints can generate severe price spikes and bring the momentum and optimism of the EV market to a halt. Particularly, the reliance of cobalt in the cathode is concerning owing to its high cost, scarcity, and centralized and volatile supply chain structure. However, compositions suitable for EV applications that demonstrate high energy density and lifetime are all reliant on cobalt to some degree. In this work, we assess the necessity and feasibility of developing and commercializing cobalt-free cathode materials for LIBs. Promising cobalt-free compositions and critical areas of research are highlighted, which provide new insight into the role and contribution of cobalt.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207