Performance of Carbon-Nickel Composite Coatings on Laser Surface Roughened Aluminum Foils for Supercapacitor Current Collectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface-engineered aluminum current collectors were developed through laser-based surface modification methods. Their performances as current collectors in supercapacitors clearly outperformed state-of-the-art carbon-coated commercial foils and were close to ideal gold foils, thanks to the enhanced interfaces provided by their engineered surfaces. Surface modifications included roughening by laser ablation in high vacuum, and coating with a carbon-nickel (C 0.97 Ni 0.03 ) composite thin film deposited using pulsed laser deposition. The main improvement was obtained after coating the aluminum foil with the carbon-nickel protective layer, which was attributed to the almost pure sp 2 bonding state of the carbon and a mostly metallic nickel phase. The surface roughening treatment further decreased the interface resistance by providing a higher contact surface and a better mechanical anchorage of the active materials layer. The combination of laser roughening in vacuum conditions and subsequent deposition of an electronically conductive protective coating was therefore demonstrated as an efficient approach to improve the performance of current collectors for supercapacitors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".