Bibliographic record
Abstract
LiNiO2 (LNO) has high capacity but suffers from structural instability and capacity fade, which limits its practical use in lithium-ion batteries. This study proposes co-doping LNO with Mn and Ti (MnTi25) as a strategy to overcome these issues. MnTi25 was thoroughly characterized, revealing improved structural stability and significantly reduced cation mixing compared to pristine LNO. The half-cell performance of MnTi25 is noteworthy, exhibiting a capacity similar to the established 4% Mn-substituted ZoomWeMn4 standard, demonstrating efficient Li-ion extraction and insertion. Additionally, full-cell testing against a graphite anode shows that MnTi25 delivers a capacity almost identical to a commercial LNO-based material. This promising achievement highlights the effectiveness of co-doping in addressing LNO's limitations while preserving its high-capacity potential. This study demonstrates that MnTi25 can be a promising cathode material for high-performance lithium-ion batteries by tailoring the material's structure through co-doping.
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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".