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 OpenAlexafffund
Cristina Rodríguez‐Seco, Yuesheng Wang, Karim Zaghib, Dongling Ma

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.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanophotonicsSame topicAdvanced Photocatalysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207