A Review of Chemically Induced Intercalation and Deintercalation in Battery Materials
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
Intercalation is the fundamental process underlying lithium‐ion batteries and related technologies. While intercalation is electrochemically induced in batteries, it can also be performed with chemical redox agents. In principle, the two processes are equivalent, although there can be differences, such as rate control, side reactions, and charge transfer mechanisms. Chemically induced intercalation can be used where electrochemical methods are impractical or impossible and continues to inspire innovative applications. This chemistry is important in synthesis and pretreatment of intercalation materials, with novel impactful applications emerging that range from lithium recycling to intercalation material‐based redox flow batteries. This review summarizes the use of chemical intercalation and serves as a resource for selecting and optimizing methods specific to material and application. Covering the whole life cycle of intercalation materials: development, synthesis, use, and finally recycling, it can be expected that these reactions will continue to have great impact on the path toward efficient and cheap energy storage.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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