Bibliographic record
Abstract
To stabilize the Earth’s climate a large-scale transition is needed to non-carbon emitting renewable energy technologies like wind and solar energy. Although these renewable energy sources are now lower-cost than fossil fuels, their inherent intermittency make them unable to supply a constant load without storage. To address these challenges rechargeable electric batteries are currently the most promising option; however, their high capital costs limit current deployment velocities. To both reduce the cost as well as improve performance 3D printing technology has emerged as a promising solution. This literature review provides the state-of-the-art enhancements of battery properties with 3D printing including efficiency, mechanical stability, energy and power density, customizability and sizing, production process efficiency, material conservation and environmental sustainability as well as the progress in solid-state batteries. The principles, advantages, limitations, and recent advancements associated with the most common types of 3D printing are reviewed focusing on their contributions to the battery field. 3D printing batteries offer design flexibility, material flexibility, reduces pack weight, minimizes material waste, increases the range of applications and has the potential to reduce costs. As 3D printing technologies become more accessible, the prospect of cost-effective production for customized batteries is extremely promising.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".