MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoting Reversible Anionic Redox in Sodium-Ion Cathodes by Doping and Phase Control

2025· article· en· W4408404195 on OpenAlexafffund
Shipeng Jia, Marzieh Abdolhosseini, Yixuan Li, Sang‐Jun Lee, Hirohito Ogasawara, Ning Chen, Alexander S. Hebert, J. Michael Sieffert, Maddison Eisnor, Eric McCalla

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Materials Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)McGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRedoxCathodePhase (matter)IonDopingSodiumChemistryInorganic chemistryMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important efforts are underway to harness anionic redox to obtain high-energy Na-ion cathodes. Previously, we identified disruptive dopants in Na–Mn–O that induced reversible oxygen redox. Here, we perform detailed mechanistic studies to understand why these dopants are effective. First, we confirm that no transition metals (TMs) are being oxidized─it is indeed oxygen redox. We also identify that reversible TM migration occurs in the P2 phase where reversible anionic redox occurs, while the migration is irreversible in the distorted P′2 phase. Structural control over the anionic redox is highly significant, but we further elucidate the role of the disruptive dopants. Localized oxygen holes are identified as the source of the reversible anionic redox, and these are deemed to remain stable due to the dopants minimizing the interactions between oxygens to prevent their dimerization. These important contributions to understanding anionic redox will help realize viable high-energy Na-ion batteries.

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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