Copper diffusion related phase change and voltage decay in CuS cathode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copper sulfide (CuS) is a promising cathode for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) due to its impeccable theoretical energy density (∼ 1015 Wh·kg −1 and 4743 Wh·L −1 ). However, it suffers from voltage decay leaded energy density loss and low energy efficiency, which hinders its application. In this work, with combined ex-situlin-situ X-ray diffraction (XRD) and electrochemical analysis, we explore detailed degradation mechanisms. For the voltage decay, it is attributed to a spontaneous reaction between CuS cathode and copper current collector (Cu CC). This reaction leads to energy density loss and active materials degradation (CuS → Cu 1.81 S). As for energy efficiency, CuS undergoes a series of phase transformations. The main phase transition processes are CuS → α -LiCuS → Li 2− x Cu x S + Cu → Li 2 S + Cu for discharge; Li 2 S + Cu → Li 2− x Cu x S → β -LiCuS → CuS for charge. Here, α -LiCuS, β -LiCuS, and Li 2− x Cu x S are newly identified phases. These phase changes are driven by topotactic-reaction-related copper diffusion and rearrangement. This work demonstrates the significance of transition-metal diffusion in the intermediates formation and phase change in conversion-type materials.
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".