Tailoring the Periphery Aliphatic Group of Cathode Organosulfide for Rechargeable High‐Performance All‐Solid‐State Lithium Battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic cathode materials exhibit higher energy storage capacity, their poor cyclability due to dissolution in liquid organic electrolytes remains a challenge. However, recently, the electrochemical behavior of organopolysulfides incorporating N‐heterocycles unveils promising cathode materials with stable cycling performance. Herein, the integration of organosulfides salt as cathodes with solid electrolytes, exemplified by sodium allyl(methyl)carbamodithioate and sodium diethylcarbamodithioate with a polymer solid electrolyte of polyethylene oxide and LiTFSI, addresses the poor electrochemical stability of organic electrodes. Comparative analysis highlights sodium allyl(methyl)carbamodithioate's superior electrochemical performance and stability compared with sodium diethylcarbamodithioate, emphasizing the efficacy of periphery aliphatic modification in enhancing electrode capacity, rate performance, and electrochemical stability for organosulfide materials within all‐solid‐state lithium organic batteries. We also explore the origin of periphery aliphatic modification in these enhancing electrochemical performances by kinetic analysis and thermodynamic analysis. Furthermore, employing density functional theory calculations and ex situ FTIR experiments elucidates the critical role of the N–C=S structure in the energy storage mechanism. This research advances organic cathode design within organosulfide materials, unlocking the potential of all‐solid‐state lithium organic batteries with enhanced cyclability, propelling the development of next‐generation energy storage systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".