Li Host Carbon Materials As the Negative Electrode for a Li-Metal Battery – Mechanistic and Practical Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lithium metal anode is highly valued in the development of high-energy density storage devices owing to its high specific capacity. However, the growth of lithium dendrites and high-volume expansion during the charging process creates significant issues for commercial application. To regulate the lithium deposition behavior various methods have been proposed among which carbon-based materials are being widely investigated because of their unique advantages including high conductivity, along with the material availability and ease of operation. However, current literature on lithium deposition in carbonaceous hosts have contradictory conclusions and further investigation is needed 1–4 . Herein, pure hollow core-carbon spheres (PHCCSs), deposited on copper foil (PHCCS@Cu), are used to study the lithium deposition behavior with respect to this type of structure. It is demonstrated that lithium shows some initial and limited intercalation into the PHCCSs and then plates on its external walls and the top-surface of the hollow core carbon structures during the charging process. Figure 1 shows initial lithium insertion followed by lithium deposition with a greater amount of charging. A possible mechanism of lithium deposition inside the PHCCSs is discussed from the aspect of lithium-ion transport and lithium deposition site preference. The application potential of PHCCSs from the point of view of lithium metal volumetric capacity (VC) are also discussed. References G. Zheng et al., Nat. Nanotechnol. , 9 , 618–623 (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.152. D. Lin et al., Nat. Nanotechnol. , 11 (2016). K. Yan et al., Nat. Energy , 1 , 16010 (2016). W. Ye et al., Adv. Energy Mater. , 10 , 1–10 (2020). Figure 1
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".