MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226059715 · doi:10.1515/nanoph-2021-0782

Photoactive nanomaterials enabled integrated photo‐rechargeable batteries

2022· review· en· W4226059715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNanophotonics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicAdvanced Photocatalysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHydro-QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNanomaterialsNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

batteries and capacitors) has been increasing over the last years. The rising need for electricity storage and overcoming the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources have been potent drivers of this increase. Solar energy is the most abundant renewable energy source. Thus, the combination of photovoltaic devices with energy storing systems has been pursued as a novel approach in applications such as electric vehicles and smart grids. Among all the possible configurations, the "direct" incorporation of photoactive materials in the storing devices is most attractive because it will enhance efficiency and reduce volume/weight compared to conventional systems comprised two individual devices. By generating and storing electricity in a singular device, integrated photo-rechargeable batteries offer a promising solution by directly storing electricity generated by sunlight during the day and reversibly releasing it at night time. They hold a sizable potential for future commercialization. This review highlights cutting-edge photoactive nanomaterials serving as photoelectrodes in integrated photobatteries. The importance and influence of their structure and morphology and relevant photocatalytic mechanisms will be focal points, being strong influencers of device performance. Different architecture designs and working principles are also included. Finally, challenges and limitations are discussed with the aim of providing an outlook for further improving the performance of integrated devices. We hope this up-to-date, in-depth review will act as a guide and attract more researchers to this new, challenging field, which has a bright application prospect.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.274 · 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