Research Progress in Lithium‐Excess Disordered Rock‐Salt Oxides Cathode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for new energy sources has promoted the improvement of the energy storage capacity of lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs) that urged the development of higher energy density cathode materials. The enhancement of the classical cathode in the last 30 years has reached a bottleneck, and then the discovery of the lithium‐excess disordered materials has greatly expanded the research space of the cathode materials. Compared with the conventional layered oxides, the lithium‐excess disordered rock‐salt oxides (LEDRXs) with a more stable structure has higher extractable Li + content, even though the inactive high‐valent transition metals (TMs) were needed to compensate for the excess Li, which would reduce the total TM redox content. In addition, oxygen redox provides additional electron capacity for the materials, which also causes O loss and results in the subsequent poor cycle performance. Herein, a series of studies about LEDRXs and their targeted modification measures are summarized, including the prospect of the materials, in order to provide ideas for the design of high‐performance LEDRXs. Finally, the new discoveries and outlook on future research directions of LEDRX cathode materials for LIBs with higher energy density are given.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".