MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133008653

Material Screening for Solid State Electrolyte Applications through Machine Learning and Ab-initio Molecular Dynamic Calculations

2023· dissertation· W7133008653 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2023
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkCategorizationElectrolyteSoftwareSolid-stateState (computer science)Variety (cybernetics)Fast ion conductor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid state electrolyte batteries provide a noticeable advantage over conventional liquid batteries due to improved safety and their potential for increased energy storage over current batteries. For this thesis, two types of calculations are undertaken: first, a machine learning neural network has been used to predict optimal systems; second, first principle Ab-Initio Molecular Dynamic (AIMD) calculations have been performed to predict the performance of the systems previously identified. Machine learning was implemented using the Tensorflow library, where a variety of neural networks were optimized and tested in the categorization and discovery of promising solid state electrolytes. AIMD was implemented using the Vienna Ab-Initio Software Package (VASP), where promising materials systems were simulated and then had ionic conductivities determined from these simulation results. The AIMD portion of this study focused on the Argyrodite system class, which was found during literature review and through the use of the preceding machine learning calculations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207