MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412071800 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00947

Halogen-Substituted Li <sub>3</sub> InCl <sub>6</sub> : Insights into the Evolved Structure, Composition, and Ionic Conductivity

2025· article· en· W4412071800 on OpenAlexafffund
Fuwei Wen, Trinanjan Dey, Arthur Mar, Lingzi Sang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsPolarizabilityHalogenConductivityIonic conductivityTernary operationSolubilityChemistryHalideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonIonic bondingDielectric spectroscopyPhase (matter)Solid solutionInorganic chemistryCrystallographyPhysical chemistryMoleculeElectrochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ternary Li-containing halides have gained significant interest for all-solid-state batteries because they show high Li-ion conductivity and their structures can be modified. In this study, halogen substitution in Li 3 InCl 6 was attempted to form Li 3 InCl 6– x X x ( X = F, Br, I) samples whose phase compositions and Li + conductivity were characterized by X-ray diffraction and impedance spectroscopy. Based on the evolution of cell parameters, Cl can be substituted by F within the experimental limit of x ≤ 1.2, while by other halogens up to a solid solubility limit of x = 0.6 for Br and x < 0.1 for I. The Li-ion conductivity diminished with greater nominal compositions of X in the samples, especially as other phases exhibiting low conductivity are formed. These results suggest that increased polarizability of X is not a dominant factor that influences the Li + mobility in Li 3 InCl 6– x X x .

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 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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207