MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406864708 · doi:10.1021/acsenergylett.4c03331

Solid-State Lithium Metal Batteries for Electric Vehicles: Critical Single Cell Level Assessment of Capacity and Lithium Necessity

2025· article· en· W4406864708 on OpenAlexafffund
Vishnu Surendran, Venkataraman Thangadurai

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Energy Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of St AndrewsFaraday InstitutionUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsLithium (medication)Lithium metalMaterials scienceMetalEnvironmental scienceChemistryAnodeMetallurgyElectrodePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide In pursuing advanced clean energy storage technologies, all-solid-state Li metal batteries (ASSMBs) emerge as promising alternatives to conventional organic liquid electrolyte-based batteries due to their reduced flammability risks, increased energy densities, extended lifespan, and design flexibility. Here, we estimate lithium requirements per unit of energy, cathode loading, and the amount of electrolyte required at a single-layer cell level ASSMB utilizing garnet-type, NASICON-type, and sulfide solid electrolytes and LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O 2 (NMC811), LiCoO 2, and LiFePO 4 cathodes for Li metal anode and in situ anode configurations. To enable advanced batteries suitable for long-range and fast-charging electric vehicles, the electrodes (anode and cathode) must achieve a practical areal capacity of at least 7 mAh cm –2 and support rapid charging rates of 4C (15 min). Furthermore, we also present the key requirements for mechanical properties and strategic design considerations in ASSMB architecture to effectively address the challenges posed by the volume expansion of the electrodes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations38
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Energy LettersSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207