MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285393136 · doi:10.3390/batteries8070070

On the Current and Future Outlook of Battery Chemistries for Electric Vehicles—Mini Review

2022· article· en· W4285393136 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

VenueBatteries · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsElectrificationAnodeBattery (electricity)ElectrolyteOrganic radical batteryLithium metalEnergy storageNanotechnologyCathodeCurrent collectorElectric vehicleMaterials scienceEngineeringElectrodeElectrical engineeringElectricityChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the electrification of the transportation industry is accelerating, the energy storage markets are trying to secure more reliable and environmentally benign materials. Advanced materials are the key performance enablers of batteries as well as a key element determining the cost structure, environmental impact, and recyclability of battery cells. In this review, we analyzed the state-of-the-art cell chemistries and active electrode and electrolyte materials for electric vehicles batteries, which we believe will dominate the battery chemistry landscape in the next decade. We believe that major breakthroughs and innovations in electrode materials such as high-nickel cathodes and silicon and metallic lithium anodes, along with novel liquid electrolyte formulations and solid-state electrolytes, will significantly improve the specific capacity of lithium batteries and reduce their cost, leading to accelerated mass-market penetration of EVs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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