MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385055274 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad067.777

Primary Knock-On Damage Prediction During the Electron Microscopy Characterization of Lithium-Containing Materials

2023· article· en· W4385055274 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Jaberi, Nicolas Brodusch, Jun Song, Raynald Gauvin

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Library scienceHistoryEngineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are being evaluated as a possible energy storage solution to climate change for meeting power and energy demands [1]. Characterizing battery materials with high-resolution electron microscopy is essential for developing LIBs. Because lithium (Li) atoms are light and waekly bonded in Li-compounds, these materials are susceptible to knock-on damage [2]. This damage happens when a beam electron scatters elastically and transmits energy to the atom that is greater than its threshold displacement energy (TDE) [3]. This study investigated knock-on damage by Monte Carlo simulation and theoretical calculations of the probability of knock-on damage, PKOD. To achieve this, the TDEs were calculated using the sudden approximation technique within the Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations for three groups of materials: LiX (X=F, Cl, Br), and Li2MSiO4 (M = Fe, Co, Mn), and pure elements (Li, Al, Mg). Fig. 1 shows the PKOD of three groups of materials of interest. As illustrated in this figure, pure Li has the largest PKOD, demonstrating the high vulnerability of Li to knock-on damage. It also signifies the strange behavior of Li regarding the appearance of a peak in PKOD in both its pure and compound form. This was also reported in reference [4], where a peak was also discovered in the knock-on damage cross-section of Li. Our theoretical calculations explain this behavior with the abrupt drop in the elastic cross section of Li with increasing energy, resulting from the small TDE and light weight of this element. We developed a Monte Carlo algorithm which utilizes the single scattering method like Win X-ray [5] and CASINO [6] to simulate the electron trajectories while tracking the knock-on damage. Fig. 2 illustrates the results of these simulations in which the green dot represents the place where the displacement of Li atoms. Comparing the amount of knock-on damage in this figure with the PKOD, shown in Fig. 1, demonstrates the consistency between simulations and theoretical calculations. Also, the difference in the amount of knock-on damage in materials within the same group (i.e., identical structures) could be explained by the difference in the TDE of Li in that material group. Nevertheless, other parameters, including elastic cross-section, density and atomic weight, were found to affect this damage. The probability of Li knock-on damage, PKOD, for a) pure elements (Li, Al, Mg), b) LiX (X = F, Cl, Br), and c) Li2MSiO4 (M = Co, Fe, Mn). Monte Carlo simulation of knock-on damage at 30 KeV in a) LiF, b) LiCl, c) LiBr, d) Li2CoSiO4, e) Li2FeSiO4, and f) Li2MnSiO4.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207