Designing Surface Coating Strategies with Tungsten on Single Crystal NMC Materials by XPS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Medium‐nickel layered oxide materials are a promising positive electrode material for high energy density lithium ion batteries. These materials can suffer from surface instability at a highly de‐lithiated state and poor rate capability. Surface coatings with multiple elements are a common strategy to overcome some of these challenges, however, the rationale behind adding these elements has never been explored. Here, various mid‐nickel single crystal vendor materials are evaluated by X‐ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and identified various surface coating compounds that can form during synthesis. Among the many common coating elements this study primarily focuses on tungsten (W). Using the in‐house “all dry synthesis” method, single crystal Li 1+x (Ni 0.6 Mn 0.3 Co 0.1 ) 1‐x O 2 materials are developed, where W is added at different stages of the synthesis to generate some unique W‐based surface compounds that match with vendor materials. This study systematically evaluates different W‐based surface compounds, compares their overall effect on electrochemical performance and highlights the instability of some of them. This work demonstrates that W is an important element and can significantly improve electrochemical performance when added in a second heating step.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it