Upcycling of spent LiCoO<sub>2</sub> cathodes via nickel‐ and manganese‐doping
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Direct recycling has been regarded as one of the most promising approaches to dealing with the increasing amount of spent lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs). However, the current direct recycling method remains insufficient to regenerate outdated cathodes to meet current industry needs as it only aims at recovering the structure and composition of degraded cathodes. Herein, a nickel (Ni) and manganese (Mn) co‐doping strategy has been adopted to enhance LiCoO 2 (LCO) cathode for next‐generation high‐performance LIBs through a conventional hydrothermal treatment combined with short annealing approach. Unlike direct recycling methods that make no changes to the chemical composition of cathodes, the unique upcycling process fabricates a series of cathodes doped with different contents of Ni and Mn. The regenerated LCO cathode with 5% doping delivers excellent electrochemical performance with a discharge capacity of 160.23 mAh g −1 at 1.0 C and capacity retention of 91.2% after 100 cycles, considerably surpassing those of the pristine one (124.05 mAh g −1 and 89.05%). All results indicate the feasibility of such Ni–Mn co‐doping‐enabled upcycling on regenerating LCO cathodes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it