MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379055392 · doi:10.1021/acsenergylett.3c00724

Safety and Quality Issues of Counterfeit Lithium-Ion Cells

2023· review· en· W4379055392 on OpenAlexaff
Tapesh Joshi, Saad Azam, Daniel Juarez Robles, Judith A. Jeevarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Energy Letters · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverchargeCounterfeitThermal runawayElectronicsQuality (philosophy)Lithium (medication)Materials scienceBattery (electricity)Electrical engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries continue to transform consumer electronics, mobility, and energy storage sectors, and the applications and demands for batteries keep growing. Supply limitations and costs may lead to counterfeit cells in the supply chain that could affect quality, safety, and reliability of batteries. Our research included studies of counterfeit and low-quality lithium-ion cells, and our observations on the differences between these and original ones, as well as the significant safety implications, are discussed. The counterfeit cells did not include internal protective devices such as the positive temperature coefficient or current interrupt devices that typically offer protection against external short circuits and overcharge conditions, respectively, in cells from original manufacturers. Poor-quality materials and lack of engineering knowledge were also evident on analyses of the electrodes and separators from low-quality manufacturers. When the low-quality cells were subjected to off-nominal conditions, they experienced high temperature, electrolyte leakage, thermal runaway, and fire. In contrast, the authentic lithium-ion cells performed as expected. Recommendations are provided to identify and avoid counterfeit and low-quality lithium-ion cells and batteries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Energy LettersSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207