MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301831342 · doi:10.1149/ma2016-02/5/694

Nmr's Perspective of Speciation Process in Lithium Sulfur Batteries

2016· article· en· W4301831342 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Wang, Baris Key, Niya Sa, Meinan He, John T. Vaughey, Linda F. Nazar, Mahalingam Balasubramanian, Kevin G. Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)ElectrochemistryBattery (electricity)ChemistryElectrolyteGenetic algorithmLithium–sulfur batterySulfurInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryElectrodeOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium sulfur (Li-S) battery is a promising alternative technology of lithium ion batteries. However, due to the complicity of the chemistry in Li-S batteries, the mechanism is not well understood. In addition, the co-existence of soluble species and insoluble species limits the application of other characterization techniques. The sensitivity and element selectivity make NMR spectroscopy a powerful tool to study the changes in local chemical environment and speciation process in Li-S batteries. In this study, in situ 7 Li NMR spectroscopy was employed where plastic pouch cells were assembled and cycled in the magnet while NMR spectra were acquired simultaneously. Method to quantitatively study entire lithium inventory in a Li-S battery is developed and implemented, and the cell design is optimized for electrochemical performance and spectroscopic resolution. This methodology can be readily extended to Li-S batteries with other electrolytes where the speciation process can be tracked and analyzed. The development of electrolyte will also benefit greatly from the detailed understanding of the Li-S battery speciation process as well as the additive development. [1] See, et. al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136 (46), pp 16368–16377 [2] Xiao, et. al., Nano Lett., 2015, 15, 3309-3316

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207