Two-step synthesis of large-<i>π</i> conjugated polyimides for the anode of sodium ion battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored a two-step synthesis to prepare polyimide (PI) for applications as the anode of sodium ion batteries (SIBs). Recently, organic materials, particularly π-conjugated organic polymers, have emerged as promising alternatives to hard carbons for SIBs that have garnered considerable attention in advancing energy storage technology due to the abundance of sodium resources and their cost-effectiveness. The proposed two-step synthesis took place at a moderate temperature 120 °C, which was much lower than the existing single step method, in which the elevated temperature might lead to by-product formation. This low temperature synthesis incorporated multiple carbonyl redox sites in the final products and effectively addressed the structural instability and active site loss that were typically associated with high-temperature synthesis processes. The resulting SIBs demonstrate a reversible capacity of 330.1 mAh g−1 after 1100 cycles at a current density of 1.0 A g−1, with a capacity retention of 99.2% and a capacity maintenance rate of 98.8%. These performance metrics are comparable to those of existing hard carbon anode materials. The results suggest that the optimization of polyimide materials presents a viable strategy for improving sodium-ion battery performance.
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".