MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382983503 · doi:10.3390/batteries9070353

Sustainable Development Goals and End-of-Life Electric Vehicle Battery: Literature Review

2023· article· en· W4382983503 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBatteries · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasBattery (electricity)Sustainable developmentEnvironmental economicsLife-cycle assessmentConsumption (sociology)Environmental scienceCircular economySustainable transportBusinessSustainabilityProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a global urgency to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, there has been an increasing demand for electric vehicles on the roads to replace vehicles that use internal combustion. Subsequently, the demand and consumption of raw materials have increased, and thus, there has been an increasing number of retired lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) that contain valuable elements. This literature review paper looks at the following: lifecycle assessments (LCA) of EV batteries, the recycling of LIBs while analyzing what studies have been conducted to improve recycling processes, what recycling facilities have been established or are being planned, studies on the circular economy, the environmental benefits of recycling end-of-life (EOL) batteries, and how LIB recycling is aligned with the Sustainable Devel opment Goals, focusing in particular on Goal 13: Climate Action.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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