MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409397825 · doi:10.1186/s13065-025-01445-x

Accidents involving lithium-ion batteries in non-application stages: incident characteristics, environmental impacts, and response strategies

2025· review· en· W4409397825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Chemistry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsLithium (medication)Environmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid growth of electric vehicle adoption, the demand for lithium-ion batteries has surged, highlighting the importance of understanding the associated risks, particularly in non-application stages such as transportation, storage, assembly, and disposal. This review explores the types and causes of lithium-ion battery accidents, categorizing them into leakage, fire, and explosion, often resulting from electrical, thermal, and mechanical abuses. It examines the environmental impacts of such incidents, including the release of toxic substances that threaten public health and ecological systems. The research also outlines the need for effective risk assessment methods and compliance with safety standards. Furthermore, it evaluates current emergency response strategies, advocating for a unified approach to managing these incidents. By delving into the complexities of lithium-ion battery safety, this study aims to contribute to improved practices and regulatory frameworks, ultimately enhancing related accident responses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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