Atomic‐Scale Revealing the Structure Distribution between LiMO<sub>2</sub> and Li<sub>2</sub>MnO<sub>3</sub> in Li‐Rich and Mn‐Based Oxide Cathode Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lithium‐rich and manganese‐based oxide (LRMO) cathode materials are regarded as promising cathode materials for lithium‐ion batteries with anionic redox characteristics and higher specific energy density. However, the complex initial structure and complicated reaction mechanism of LRMO is controversial. Herein, the reaction mechanism and unusual electrochemical phenomena are reconsidered after proposing the concept of structure distribution between Li2MnO3 and LiMO2 structures. The initial structure states show different types of composition characteristics of Li2MnO3 and LiMO2, including “large and isolated distribution” and “uniformly dispersed distribution” characteristics, as summarized by multiple aberration correction scanning transmission electron microscopy observations at the atomic‐scale for cross sectional samples. Based on the density functional theory calculations, X‐ray absorption spectroscopy, and atomic‐scale observations during the different voltage states, the results accordingly suggest that the distribution characteristic is the essential cause of the unusual behavior in LRMO. It governs the reaction behavior, leading to the changes in electronic structure of O2p and TM3d, and the maintenance of layered structure, reversibility of the anionic redox, as well as, the voltage hysteresis. This work constructs the interrelationships of electrochemical behavior—distribution characteristic—reaction mechanism, contributing to the further application of LRMO materials in the electric vehicle market.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".