MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391639882 · doi:10.1149/ma2023-022254mtgabs

Ultra-High Energy Density LiFePO<sub>4</sub> Electrodes

2023· article· en· W4391639882 on OpenAlexaff
M.A. Syed, M. N. Obrovac

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrodeMaterials scienceEnergy densityEnergy (signal processing)Engineering physicsChemistryMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Olivine structured LiFePO4 (LFP) has attracted significant attention as a promising cathode material for LIBs. An advantage of using LFP compared to other cathode chemistries (i.e., NMC, LCO & LNO) is that iron is naturally abundant, making LFP low in cost, environmental impact, and toxicity.1,2 Though LFP has high thermal stability and excellent cycle life, it suffers from poor electronic conductivity and low Li+ ion diffusion which have been improved by carbon coating and reducing particle sizes to nanometres (<1 µm), respectively.3 To improve the energy density of LFP electrodes we have developed ultra-dense LFP electrodes with densities in excess of 2.7 g/cm3 to be achieved with high loadings (15 mg/cm3) and with electrode formulations containing 90% LFP active material. This corresponds to an electrode porosity of only 14% and, as shown in Figure 1(a), represents a volumetric energy density increase of about 27% compared to conventional LFP. Moreover, as shown in Figure 1(b), ultra-high density LFP electrodes were found to have higher coulombic efficiency than conventional calendered LFP electrodes with lower densities. Voltage polarization was also found to be reduced. Lastly, Figure 1(c) shows an approximate 4 times reduction in charge transfer resistance for an ultra-dense LFP electrode with respect to a conventional calendered LFP electrode. The ability to make highly dense LFP electrodes could have profound impacts, allowing for Li-ion cells to be made with low costs and low environmental impact LFP, while achieving volumetric energy densities approaching that of Li-ion cells employing layered oxide cathodes. References X. Ren et al., J. Electrochem. Soc., 167, 130523 (2020). L. Wen, X. Hu, H. Luo, F. Li, and H. Cheng, Particuology, 22, 24–29 (2015). L.-X. Yuan et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 4, 269–284 (2011). Figure 1

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting Abstracts→Same topicAdvancements in Battery Materials→French-language works237,207→