MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390231765 · doi:10.1002/sus2.177

Lithium sulfide: a promising prelithiation agent for high‐performance lithium‐ion batteries

2023· article· en· W4390231765 on OpenAlexaff
Junkang Huang, Weifeng Li, Wenli Zhang, Bixia Lin, Yang Wang, Siu Wing Or, Shuhui Sun, Zhenyu Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueSusMat · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLithium (medication)CathodeEnergy densityElectrolyteMaterials scienceElectronicsComputer scienceNanotechnologyElectrical engineeringEngineering physicsChemistryEngineeringElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lithium‐ion batteries are widely used in portable electronics and electric vehicles due to their high energy density, stable cycle life, and low self‐discharge. However, irreversible lithium loss during the formation of the solid electrolyte interface greatly impairs energy density and cyclability. To compensate for the lithium loss, introducing an external lithium source, that is, a prelithiation agent, is an effective strategy to solve the above problems. Compared with other prelithiation strategies, cathode prelithiation is more cost‐effective with simpler operation. Among various cathode prelithiation agents, we first systematically summarize the recent progress of Li 2 S‐based prelithiation agents, and then propose some novel strategies to tackle the current challenges. This review provides a comprehensive understanding of Li 2 S‐based prelithiation agents and new research directions in the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSusMatSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207