In Situ and In Operando Techniques to Study Li-Ion and Solid-State Batteries: Micro to Atomic Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work summarizes the most commonly used in situ techniques for the study of Li-ion batteries from the micro to the atomic level. In situ analysis has attracted a great deal of interest owing to its ability to provide a wide range of information about the cycling behavior of batteries from the beginning until the end of cycling. The in situ techniques that are covered are: X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy (STEM). An optimized setup is required to be able to use any of these in situ techniques in battery applications. Depending on the type of data required, the available setup, and the type of battery, more than one of these techniques might be needed. This study organizes these techniques from the micro to the atomic level, and shows the types of data that can be obtained using these techniques, their advantages and their challenges, and possible strategies for overcoming these challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".